Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That, until the Summer Adjournment, those provisions of Standing Order 179 (Printing of bill as amended in committee) which require that copies of every Private Bill, as amended in Committee, shall be printed at the expense of the promoters and copies thereof delivered to the Vote Office for the use of Members of the House, not less than three clear days before the consideration of such Bill, shall be deemed to have been complied with provided that the copies so delivered are printed copies of the Bill as brought from the Lords with the Amendments made in Committee added in manuscript or on duplicated sheets attached to the said copies.
This Motion will enable promoters of Private Bills to deposit in the Vote Office manuscript or duplicated copies of Amendments made by Committees to their Bills instead of having to have their Bills reprinted at the present time.

Question put and agreed to.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Irish Cattle (Import Restrictions)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the restrictions at present affecting the import of Irish cattle into Great Britain.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): As the reply is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a very valuable trade to both countries concerned and that it has a great tradition behind it? Will he say whether it is the policy of the Government to encourage or discourage it and will he make a statement on that trade in relation to the trade in Scottish cattle?

Mr. Godber: I would agree that this is an important trade. We have tried to strike a fair balance between the need to safeguard against the risk of the re-introduction of disease and the need to see that those in this country who rely on these cattle as stores get an adequate supply. I think that we have a fair balance.

Following is the information:
Although cattle from Ireland may be freely landed at approved ports, this arrangement can at any time be suspended for disease reasons. Vessels carrying Irish cattle of attested status may not carry cattle not of that status on the same journey.
All Irish cattle must be accompanied by a veterinary certificate given by the Government of the country of origin immediately before shipment. On arrival in this country they must be detained in isolation, examined by a veterinary inspector, and ear-tagged. Attested Irish cattle, and cattle which have passed one tuberculin test in Ireland within fourteen days of shipment must be accompanied by documents enabling each animal to be individually identified on arrival.
Irish cattle may be moved under licence from the landing place only to a specially authorised market, or to other premises including a slaughterhouse. Special arrangements are made in authorised markets to segregate attested Irish cattle from other cattle.
Subsequent movements of Irish cattle from markets must also be under licence. Except where the cattle go to a slaughterhouse they must be detained at their final destination for six days. Movements are allowed under licence during this period only for slaughter or export. Any Irish cattle remaining unsold in an authorised market must be detained for six days on approved accommodation premises.
Irish attested and once-tested cattle may enter attested or eradication areas in this country and may join attested herds outside such areas. Once-tested cattle entering such areas or herds must be held in isolation for not less than sixty days at their final destination unless slaughtered before the expiry of that period. After the expiry of the period they are officially tested by the Ministry. If they pass they may join the herd. If they do not, and are in an eradication or attested area, they are slaughtered compulsorily and the owner compensated; if they are outside such an area, but on premises where there is an attested herd, the owner is given the choice of disposing of them himself.


Untested Irish cattle may enter attested or eradication areas only for immediate slaughter and subject to their being marked in a prescribed manner.

Fishing Industry (Subsidies)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state his plans for the future financial structure of the fishing industry indicating, in particular, the present and future limits for subsidies.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will await the Report of the Fleck Committee before coming to any decisions on these matters.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is an urgent matter and that the trade needs attention? Will he treat it as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Hare: As I have already told the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am well aware of the importance of these matters, and I know that we have an extremely efficient Committee reporting on this matter.

Small Farmer Scheme, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications have been made, in Wales and in the County of Glamorgan, respectively, at the latest convenient date under the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act; and how long it will take his Department to deal with these applications.

Mr. Godber: Up to 3rd July, 5,649 applications had been received from farmers in Wales and Monmouthshire under the Small Farmer Scheme and 541 under the supplementary scheme. The corresponding figures for Glamorgan are 357 and 35 respectively.
Two thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight applicants have subsequently submitted farm business plans under the Small Farmer Scheme including 225 in Glamorgan. Of these 1,223 have been approved including 109 in Glamorgan. Unless they present special difficulties the remainder should be cleared within three months.
Three hundred and twenty farms have been registered under the supplementary scheme including five in Glamorgan.

The remainder of applications under the supplementary scheme should be cleared within two weeks.

Mr. Gower: As Wales has proportionately a very large number of small farms, can my hon. Friend assure the House that progress in Wales is as satisfactory as elsewhere? Can he also say what proportion of the applications already put in have been rejected or are likely to be?

Mr. Godber: I would certainly say that Wales got off to a very smart start. The Welsh farmers have come forward very well with applications and I think that they are profiting by their early applications. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are going all we can to keep up to date with the scheme. As to the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I could not give the figure without studying the matter.

Land Drainage

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in discussions with the appropriate organisations concerning the internal drainage boards and the problem of flooding in various parts of the country.

Mr. John Hare: I regret that I am not yet in a position to add to the reply given on 8th June to the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger).

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. Gentleman will know that last November he gave me an Answer which seemed to offer some hope of progress. Can he tell the House a little more, because we are approaching the winter flood season? We ought to try to get something done before then if it is at all possible.

Mr. Hare: I well remember the Question which the right hon. Gentleman put to me. I can tell him that the matters which he raised in that connection on 10th November are under discussion with the authorities concerned. I hope to be able to say something more later on.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these matters have been under discussion now for about eight years? Can he give some indication when one or other of the several alternatives will be accepted?

Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. These matters have been under discussion for a very long time. I am happy to say that we are making very reasonable progress in these discussions.

Mr. G. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear constantly in mind the fact that many farmers with land in the northern Midlands, represented by my right hon. Friend and myself, suffer great loss of money and work due to the flooding of their land, and the country loses a great deal of food?

Mr. Hare: What the hon. Gentleman has said very fairly pinpoints the importance of this matter.

Bacon

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware that dissatisfaction is felt with the grading of bacon carcases in many places carried out by the graders of his Department; and whether he will see to it that instructions are issued to bring about greater uniformity in the methods adopted.

Mr. Godber: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will let me have particulars of the complaints he has in mind, as I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction. The grading of bacon pig carcases depends entirely on actual measurements, and I am satisfied that throughout the country a high stardard of uniformity has been achieved.

Mr. Philips Price: As there is considerable dissatisfaction in some parts of the country, of which I will certainly inform the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, would it not be desirable to send out instructions to graders to secure uniformity on at least two points, namely, length of carcase and thickness of fat on the back?

Mr. Godber: Both those points are covered in the instructions given. Specific lengths and depth of fat are particularly laid down. That is why I should like to see the facts. If the hon. Member will let me have them, I will gladly look into them.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet held discussions with representatives

of the bacon curing industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: I had full discussion with representatives of the British bacon curing industry when we met on 3rd July. I shall be sending them a considered reply.

Mr. Willey: As the new Anglo-Danish Agreement, whatever its merits, is a reversal of all the previous assurances which the Government have given, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he discussed this matter with the industry and what the views of the industry were?

Mr. Hare: I kept the bacon curing industry informed in the process of negotiations.

Mr. T. Williams: Did the right hon. Gentleman also keep the British Pig Producers' Association informed as to the likely result of these negotiations? If so, can he give the House some sort of appraisal of their reaction?

Mr. Hare: During all these negotiations I kept in very close touch with the president of the National Farmers' Union.

Pig Production

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is now taking to increase pig production.

Mr. John Hare: Government action in regard to the level of the pig population is taken in the light of the Annual Review, which is conducted in consultation with the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sow population of this country has fallen in the last twelve months from 713,000 to 565,000 and that bacon factories are working at only between 35 and 40 per cent. of their capacity? Is it the policy of the Government that this deplorable trend shall continue?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have answered Questions on this subject before. The figure just given by the hon. Gentleman is an exaggeration. I estimate that the bacon curing industry is working at 64 per cent. of its highest level of production. That is a fair figure, and I gave it to the House the other day.

Information Officers

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the information officers on the staff of his Department has had journalistic experience in Fleet Street.

Mr. Godber: Of the three officers in information class posts one has had Fleet Street experience.

Mr. Russell: Is it the usual practice of my hon. Friend's Department to ensure that there is one journalist with Fleet Street experience and will that continue to be the practice?

Mr. Godber: Our practice is to make these posts available for those with this experience, provided that their other qualifications are satisfactory. We want the best men we can obtain, but as far as possible they must have some agricultural knowledge because of the highly important technical questions with which they have to deal.

Horticultural Marketing Council

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his consultations about a Horticultural Marketing Council with the interests concerned; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John Hare: Consultations are still going on, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I press him. There has been a long delay. Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that there will be a statement before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Hare: No, I am not confident that I can give that pledge. This is a very complicated and very revolutionary suggestion. We must see that the various interested bodies are able to consult with one another. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the pledge for which he asks.

Mr. Willey: But the right hon. Gentleman knows that the Runciman Report came out a very long time ago and it was generally accepted. We expect some action from the Government after this lapse of time.

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is far too closely associated with the industry

not to realise that what I have said is good common sense. We must have consultations and ensure that all interests are in a position to be able to give their views on this very new line of thinking.

Food (Strategic Reserves)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the food strategic reserves.

Mr. John Hare: Strategic reserves of food are maintained, but it is not the practice to give information about them.

Mr. Willey: We gathered from the Estimates that the appropriation in aid has fallen. Is this because prices have fallen or because the amounts of stock have fallen? If prices have fallen, will the Minister say why the housewife does not benefit from these falls in prices?

Mr. Hare: If the hon. Gentleman looks fairly at these Estimates, he will see that there has been a very small decline in the net expenditure of about £50,000. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT for 23rd July, 1951, he will see that, when he was asked a Question on these lines, he gave a very similar Answer to mine.

Orange Juice (Imports from West Indies)

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister af Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what proposals he has for the purchase by his Department of orange juice from the West Indies for consumption under the welfare schemes;
(2) what proposals he has for the purchase of citrus products from the West Indies.

Mr. John Hare: I have a responsibility for procurement of concentrated orange juice for the welfare foods service. A ten-year contract for the purchase from the West Indies of this orange juice has still one year to run. The arrangements for future years are now under discussion with a delegation from the West Indies.

Mr. Fisher: After this year has finished, the method of buying may perhaps be different and the amount of orange juice we require may perhaps be less. Despite that, will my right hon.


Friend give an assurance that whatever is required for welfare schemes will be bought from the West Indies citrus industry, which was, after all, developed to help us in war-time and should not be abandoned by us now merely to assist the United States citrus industry?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that there is any question of abandoning anything. All I am saying is that these discussions are now taking place. I will certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Hastings: Are tests made as to the vitamin content of various samples of orange juice so that we may be quite sure that they remain equally valuable for children, who need them so much?

Mr. Hare: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The consideration which he has mentioned has to be borne very much in mind.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear Answer to the Question asked by his hon. Friend, which is very important and which is supported on both sides of the House?

Mr. Hare: The right hon. Gentleman has been in responsible positions before. When one is having discussions, there is nothing one can say at the early stages before those discussions are completed.

Danish Bacon (Imports)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent he proposes to encourage more imports of Danish bacon as a result of the negotiations recently concluded with the Danish Government.

Mr. John Hare: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement on the Danish negotiations immediately after Questions this afternoon.

Mr. Lipton: Is not this a black day for British pig producers and bacon producers, who are being sold down the river by the present Government? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are going, first, to lose about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should wait for a complete Answer to his Question until the statement is made after Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

International Monetary Fund (Drawing and Standby Arrangement)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what total sum in service charges and in annual interest Her Majesty's Government will pay to the International Monetary Fund for the drawing of 561 million dollars, and the standby arrangement for 739 million dollars made by Her Majesty's Government in December, 1956.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. F. J. Erroll): On the drawing it is estimated that a total of rather less than £7 million will be paid. On the standby arrangement, a service charge of £660,000 has been paid for each of the three years of the arrangement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Am I right in concluding that that would be a total of about £10 million as an additional sum to be added to the other costs of the Suez war?

Mr. Erroll: The arithmetic of the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seems to be approximately correct. As for the second part of his supplementary question, I cannot prevent him from drawing deductions, true or false, from my purely factual Answer.

Industry (Taxation)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much is paid annually in taxation from profits by private industry; and how much by the nationalised industries combined.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I would refer the hon. Member to the figures given in the Blue Book on National Income and Expenditure 1958. Table 54 gives estimates of the tax paid by companies and public corporations; but I regret it is not possible to separate the element of tax on trading profits from that on other sources of income.
Public corporations extend beyond those commonly called the nationalised industries, but a further breakdown is contained in table 42. I regret that it is


not possible to give a still further breakdown without infringing the rule against disclosure of the tax position of individual taxpayers.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask my hon. and learned Friend why, instead of giving such a long-winded reply, he did not give the two simple figures for which I asked? Would he confirm the impression that about £1,500 million a year is obtained in taxation from private industry and that nothing is drawn in taxation from the nationalised industries? What extra source of revenue does he think he could produce if private industry were nationalised and no taxation were produced by it?

Mr. Simon: If I could have given my hon. Friend two simple figures, of course I should have done so. It is true that the great bulk of the revenue of public corporations is produced by private companies.

Mr. Jay: As the Financial Secretary is in a long-winded mood, which I welcome, will he tell us what is the total of subsidies paid by the Exchequer to private industry at present? Am I not right in thinking that it is running at rather over £400 million a year?

Mr. Simon: I must ask the right hon. Member to put that question on the Order Paper, since it in no way arises out of the original Question.

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and learned Member is in a mood to furnish information on these matters, can he say what amount of compensation has been paid by the nationalised industries to the previous owners?

Mr. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman must put down a Question about that to one of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Snow: Has the Minister noticed a recent tendency in company balance sheets to show a fraudulent valuation of certain assets, for instance, where valuations have not been conduced since 1929? If these had been shown at their correct valuation there would have been an accretion to the revenue of the country. Should not this fraudulent practice receive the Government's attention?

Mr. Simon: Questions as to fraudulent practices by company directors and their

accountants should be put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Snow: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will amend his Order concerning the repayment of postwar credits so as to permit Mr. Tomlinson, a disabled miner of Tamworth, to receive payment, bearing in mind that, although he is not a 100 per cent. disability pensioner, he does not qualify for National Assistance and would not be entitled to Unemployability Supplement.

Mr. Simon: I regret to say that Mr. Tomlinson does not qualify for his postwar credit under existing Regulations. As my right hon. Friend and I explained in the debate on the Income Tax (Repayment of Post-War Credits) Bill on 15th April, the categories for the first time made eligible for repayment on the ground of hardship are the most that can be managed at the moment. My right hon. Friend regrets therefore that he cannot at present propose any extension of the Regulations.

Mr. Snow: While it is obviously impossible to cater for all the permutations and combinations, are not post-war credits a useful instrument to cover this sort of hardship case? Here we have a very serious hardship, and I ask the Minister whether he will have another look at this problem.

Mr. Simon: Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer refused to repay post-war credits on the ground of hardship, precisely because of the difficulty of drawing a line and the feeling of those who were on the wrong side of the line that they ought to have been included. The House in general, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in particular, however, welcomed my right hon. Friend's courage in making a start with the solution to this problem, and undertook not to press him this year to extend the Regulations.

Mr. Snow: That does not apply to me in respect of my constituents.

Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency

Mr. Palmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will present to Parliament a report on the progress since


1953 of all iron and steel companies which are still wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency, indicating particularly for each one the annual output, earnings, interest and surplus paid to the Agency, investment in capital equipment, and numbers employed in management and otherwise.

Mr. Erroll: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) on 6th July.

Mr. Palmer: Since these companies have been in the possession of the Agency for a number of years, is not Parliament entitled to know what is happening? Why should there be this secrecy? Will the hon. Member explain?

Mr. Erroll: The reasons are fully set out in the Answer which I gave earlier in the week. One of the reasons for not giving further information is that we do not wish to damage their competitive position vis-à-vis other companies.

Mr. Marquand: Have the Government this information? If they have, are not the taxpayers, the public and the workers in the industry entitled to have it? If they have not, are they not neglecting their duty to the large public sector in the steel industry which is still owned by the nation?

Mr. Erroll: The Question relates to information about individual companies. We feel that the amount of extra information which they volunteer should be left to the discretion of the individual companies. It might not be in their interests to give more information than they wish.

Mr. Marquand: Is the Minister not aware that the Written Answer to my Question suggested that the British public is not entitled to know the facts about the companies it owns, whereas private companies are required to publish the information in full and can be questioned by their shareholders at annual meetings. Is not the public of Great Britain represented by its representatives in the House and cannot we have the information for which we have asked?

Mr. Erroll: A private company is not required to publish information which

goes further than that required by the Companies Act, 1948. A private company may volunteer further information provided that it does not damage its own position and standing in the industry. We think that the same discretion ought to be allowed to the directors of these companies, who are working in competition with other companies which are privately owned.

Pottery Industry (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his Department has studied the effect of Purchase Tax on the pottery industry, particularly in the first quarter of the year; and if he will take steps to diminish the harm done.

Mr. Erroll: I am aware that the home sales of pottery in the first quarter of this year were low, but in this connection the seasonal pattern of the trade must be borne in mind. The tax reductions made in the Budget and the now very moderate rate applying to its products should be of benefit to this industry.

Mr. Swingler: Has not the Economic Secretary studied the representations made to him, which give clear evidence that there is a considerable withholding of orders from the industry in anticipation of Purchase Tax changes and that this takes place during the first quarter of the year? While we want the complete removal of Purchase Tax from pottery, will he not seriously consider the effects of the present position as they are felt between Christmas and the date of the Budget?

Mr. Erroll: A deputation explained their point of view to me fully. While I recognise that this may be a minor factor, I think that they would do well to consider the essentially seasonal nature of their industry.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give in table form the internal purchasing value of the £ sterling, taking October, 1951, as 20s., and for October in each subsequent year, and to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Simon: As the Answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sparks: Why have the Government deliberately allowed the internal purchasing value of the £ to decline so heavily?

Mr. Simon: I did not catch the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, but I think that this will probably answer it: he would do well to examine the Index of Retail Prices over the last fifteen months, and he might derive benefit from comparing it with the index for the last twelve months of the Socialist Government.

Mr. Jay: Would it be true to say that the Government have raised the cost of living to the highest level ever known and are now boasting of having kept it there?

Mr. Simon: As the occupant of my position in 1951, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to ask that sort of supplementary question.

Following is the information:

Internal Purchasing Power of the £ Sterling

The internal purchasing power of the pound sterling for October of each of the years 1951 to 1958 inclusive was:—


1951
…
…
…
20s.
0d.


1952
…
…
…
19s.
4d.


1953
…
…
…
19s.
3d.


1954
…
…
…
18s.
8d.


1955
…
…
…
17s.
l1d.


1956
…
…
…
17s.
4d.


1957
…
…
…
16s.
9d.


1958
…
…
…
16s.
6d.

On the same basis, in May, 1959, the purchasing power of the pound was 16s. 7d.

The above figures are based on the Consumer Prince Index (calculated annually) corrected for the month by the Index of Retail Prices.

Food (Retail Prices)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will show in table form by what percentage and amount the retail prices of food have increased in each year since 1951, and, to the nearest convenient date, and for each year, the amount by which prices have increased since 1951.

Mr. Erroll: I thought that this Question had been answered with Question No. 19.

Mr. Speaker: I was told that it would be answered with Question No. 19, but the Financial Secretary, in answering No. 19, did not say so.

Mr. Erroll: Perhaps I might explain that the Answer to Question No. 21 is also long and contains a number of figures and that it will, with permission, be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sparks: Why is it that the Government have permitted food prices to rise so high, without making any effort to restrict them?

Mr. Erroll: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to look at the table of figures.

Mr. Jay: As there is now such confusion between the Economic Secretary and the Financial Secretary, will the Economic Secretary now answer the question which the Financial Secretary was unable to answer two minutes ago?

Mr. Erroll: I thought my hon. and learned Friend answered it quite brilliantly.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that since 1951 import prices have dropped 14 per cent. and that export prices have risen 9 per cent.; yet, in spite of that very important improvement in the terms of trade, the retail prices have risen over the same period by 25 per cent.? How does the hon. Gentleman explain the discrepancy?

Mr. Erroll: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in fairness, would quote the comparable increase in wages during the same period.

Following is the information:


PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN RETAIL FOOD PRICES*


Year

Increase over previous year
Increase since 1951


1952
…
15·8
15·8


1953
…
5·6
22·2


1954
…
2·6
25·4


1955
…
7·5
34·9


1956
…
4·4
40·8


1957
…
2·6
44·5


1958
…
2·1
47·5


May, 1959
…
− 0·4†
48·9


* The estimates are based on the sub-index for food in the Index of Retail Prices, linked to the corresponding item in the Interim Indices based on 17th June, 1947, and on 15th January, 1952, respectively. The changes since 1951 may therefore be affected by any lack of comparability between the three series used.


† Change from May, 1958.

Income Tax and Surtax

Mr. Sparks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount Income Tax and Surtax have been reduced for a married man with two children having a gross income of £500, £1,000, £5,000 and £20,000, respectively, in the year 1959–60 as compared with the year 1951–52.

Mr. Simon: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sparks: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that when

THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS BY WHAT AMOUNT INCOME TAX AND SURTAX (IF ANY) HAVE BEEN REDUCED FOR A MARRIED MAN WITH TWO CHILDREN IN THE YEAR 1959–60 COMPARED WITH THE YEAR 1951–52:



£500
£1,000
£5,000
£20,000



Income all earned



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Both children under 11
…
…
…
13
0
0
89
18
1l
715
14
4
2,323
12
6


Both children 11–16
…
…
…
13
0
0
105
11
5
746
6
10
2,368
0
0


Both children over 16
…
…
…
13
0
0
121
3
11
776
19
4
2,412
7
6



Income all investment


Both children under 11
…
…
…
35
5
0
100
10
0
518
0
0
1,913
0
0


Both children 11–16
…
…
…
39
12
6
119
17
6
548
12
6
1,957
7
6


Both children over 16
…
…
…
40
10
0
139
5
0
579
5
0
2,001
15
0

The tax liability on which these figures of difference are based comprises Income Tax for the year in question and Surtax (if any) for the preceding year, payable in the year in question.


EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TAX BILL AT 1951 RAIES, THE FIGURES ARE AS FOLLOWS:



£500
£1,000
£5,000
£20,000



Income all earned


Both children under 11
…
…
…
100
54
29
14½


Both children 11–16
…
…
…
100
63
30
14¾


Both children over 16
…
…
…
100
73
31
15



Income all investment


Both children under 11
…
…
…
88
38½
19½
11¼


Both children 11–16
…
…
…
98
45½
20½
12¼


Both children over 16
…
…
…
100
53
21½
12¼

Joint Stock Banks (Unclaimed Balances)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider taking powers to require the joint stock banks to transfer to the Treasury all balances of accounts in which no transactions have taken place for twenty years, subject to repayment of any claim if made later

the Government are in a position to reduce taxation they will equitably distribute the effects amongst the whole of the population, including the lower income groups as well as the higher income groups?

Mr. Simon: The substantial reductions in taxation which the Government have effected have been distributed equitably. In the case of a man earning £500 a year, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the whole of his 1951 tax bill has been remitted. One cannot do more than that.

Following is the Answer:

Mr. Erroll: I can see no need or justification for legislation on these lines.

Mr. Allaun: Should not these steadily accumulating balances, which were mostly owned by depositors long since dead, and which are being used by the banks for their own purposes, be treated as other property left by people without sons or heirs, so that the British taxpayer can benefit?

Mr. Erroll: The matter is not such a big one as possibly the hon. Gentleman imagines. The dormant balances in the clearing banks were estimated in 1949 to be under £6 million, the same as the figure for the Post Office Savings Bank. There is no reason to suppose that the figure has been substantially increased since then.

Balance of Payments

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an approximate estimate of the extent to which the balance of payments has been affected by the inflow of short-term funds in the first quarter of 1959 as compared with the last quarter of 1958.

Mr. Erroll: The first quarter's balance of payments figures are as yet only provisional, but the available information indicates that the movement of short-term funds in that quarter was much the same as in the preceding quarter if allowance is made for the arms purchase prepayment deposit by the Federal German authorities in March.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that the apparently favourable state of the gold and dollar reserves is due largely to the inflow of these short-term funds and that they will also flow outwards with embarrassing rapidity at the first unfavourable turn of circumstances?

Mr. Erroll: No, there is no such evidence.

Public Expenditure (Inquiry)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he proposes to enlist the support of persons who are neither members of the Government nor in the Government Service in his proposed inquiry into Treasury control of expenditure.

Mr. Simon: This will not be an inquiry into Treasury control, but a review of the principles and practice which govern the whole control by the Executive of public expenditure. My right hon. Friend hopes before the Recess to be in a position to make a further statement about how it will be conducted.

Mr. Cronin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman undertake to make this inquiry as broad as possible and to bring

in as many unofficial persons as possible in order to obtain a full report? An inquiry of the Government, by the Government and for the Government will not be so beneficial as a fuller report.

Mr. Simon: I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the Treasury observations to the Select Committee on Estimates, and to await my right hon. Friend's statement.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: Speaking as a member of the Select Committee on Estimates, may I express my appreciation of the receptive attitude of the Treasury and ask my hon. Friend whether the Committee of Inquiry will be willing to receive evidence from Members of Parliament or outside persons which may bear upon its inquiries?

Mr. Simon: I think I would prefer to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the observations of my hon. Friend, and perhaps he will be able to deal with the matter when he makes a statement.

Arts Council

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what form of contact is maintained between the Treasury and the Arts Council.

Mr. Simon: The Treasury maintains constant official contact with the Arts Council, as with other graint-aided bodies of similar important. A senior Treasury official attends Arts Council meetings as an assessor.

Mr. Jeger: As the Arts Council exists entirely on public money granted by the Treasury, is there any attempt made by the Treasury to control or advise or influence the Arts Council in the way in which it allocates this money as between one specific object and another? Is there any means by which the Arts Council can be made responsible or accountable for the money that it spends?

Mr. Simon: The system which I think has commended itself generally is that the Arts Council is responsible for the allocation of the funds which Parliament places at its disposal. There are, of course, discussions and official contacts. So far as the Covent Garden allocation for this year is concerned, the Arts Council was content that it should be dealt with in the way that it has been dealt


with, and my right hon. Friend made extra funds available specifically for that purpose.

Dame Irene Ward: As my hon. and learned Friend will presumably agree that Parliamentary control exists, will he explain how, when the Arts Council issues a report with gross inaccuracies in it, we are to control the Arts Council and enable it to issue a report which is, in fact, accurate?

Mr. Simon: The publications of the Arts Council are in this respect in the same position as reports of any other outside body.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the conditions governing the annual grant to the Arts Council of Great Britain.

Mr. Simon: No formal conditions are attached to the grant. The Arts Council is, of course, required by its Charter to use its funds solely towards the promotion of the objects of the Council as set forth in the Charter.

Mr. Jeger: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman consider that it is in accordance with the policy of promotion of the arts that the Secretary-General of the Arts Council should have recently stated that it intends to reduce the grant to provincial theatres and to cut down considerably and remove the majority of provincial repertory theatres from its benefits? Is it not a disastrous thing for provincial theatres that this should be done by the Arts Council without any responsibility whatever to the Treasury or to Parliament?

Mr. Simon: As I told the hon. Member in reply to an earlier Question, the allocation of the funds placed at its disposal is a matter for the Arts Council; but, so far as I know, no decision has been taken.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my hon. and learned Friend telling the House quite seriously that neither the Government, the Treasury, this House nor anybody else has any power of even advice, much less direction, as to whether all the funds at the disposal of the Arts Council shall or shall not be concentrated in the major centres? Is he aware that there is strong feeling throughout the country that there

should be a wider dispersion of these funds?

Mr. Simon: The accounts of the Council are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Council submits detailed estimates and produces a widely read Annual Report and I am answerable to Parliament for the grant in aid and, indeed, have frequently been called to question.

Mr. Dugdale: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that many people will support him in refraining from exercising too detailed Treasury control over how the Arts Council spends this money?

Normanby Iron Works, Cargo Fleet

Mr. Palmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of the Normanby Iron Works, Cargo Fleet, in the possession of the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency.

Mr. Erroll: The Agency announced recently that, on the recommendation of the directors of the company, it had decided with regret that the furnaces should be permanently blown out on Friday, 24th July.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this works, which employs many hundreds of men, has been closed down at almost indecently short notice? Notice was given yesterday without any consultation with the trade union, and in spite of many proposals for modernisation having been put forward by the directors to the Agency. Is not this a most extraordinary state of affairs?

Mr. Erroll: No, a representative of the trade union was informed in confidence in advance. As regards redevelopment of the works, the trouble is that the demand for haematite iron has not been increasing and that there is existing a surplus capacity. Redevelopment would not, therefore, be an economic proposition.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trade union representatives have said publicly that they were not consulted?

Mr. Erroll: I am aware of that report, and I am looking into it.

Mr. Marquand: Is it not a fact that more than once this firm has been refused permission by the Agency to modernise its works? Would he confirm or deny the rumour that it is now to be sold to its principal competitor in the industry which was sold back to private hands only last year?

Mr. Erroll: No, I can neither confirm nor deny that rumour concerning the sale of the assets, but I would point out that any reconstruction of the Normanby Iron Works would be very expensive and would not be economically justifiable.

Mr. Marquand: As this works is in my constituency, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Machine Tools (Export to U.S.S.R.)

Mr. Albu: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to increase the export of machine tools to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in accordance with the recent trade agreement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): We have given wide circulation to the Soviet purchasing programme, which includes machine tools, and we are now discussing with a team of Soviet representatives detailed arrangements which I hope will include machine tools.

Mr. Albu: Can the President of the Board of Trade explain how it is that in the first five months of this year exports of machine tools to the Soviet Union fell from a level last year of nearly £64,000 to a level this year of just over £7,500? Can he say whether that is due to lack of initiative on the part of firms exporting to the Soviet Union or because their designs are not sufficiently advanced? Can he also tell the House what Mr. Khrushchev said to the three representatives of the industry who lunched or dined with him in Leipzig during the Fair?

Sir D. Eccles: I cannot answer the last part of that supplementary question, but I can tell the hon. Member that the Soviet authorities appeared in Moscow

very ready greatly to increase their purchases of machine tools, and this is one of the subjects which the delegation is now discussing with the Board of Trade.

Design Centre

Mr. du Cann: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the response of British manufacturers to the facilities offered by the Design Centre.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. There is convincing evidence that manufacturers are placing an increasing value on the work which the Council does. At the same time there is plenty of room for more support from industry.

Mr. du Cann: Could my right hon. Friend say by how much receipts have risen since the establishment of the Centre?

Sir D. Eccles: Receipts have risen from £20,000 in the year 1954–5 to £53,800 last year.

Mr. du Cann: asked the President of the Board of Trade in how many exhibitions overseas the Design Centre participated in 1958 and is participating in 1959; and in which places such participation has taken or is taking place.

Sir D. Eccles: The Council of Industrial Design gave advice about overseas exhibits on five occasions in 1958 and will do so on fourteen such occasions in 1959. The Council's help is most valuable and much appreciated.

Mr. du Cann: Does my right hon. Friend feel that participation in these overseas exhibitions is of real help in the promotion of the export drive?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, I am sure it is, but we have to be careful that the right kind of goods are exhibited.

Board of Trade (Location Rooms)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the functions of the location rooms in his Department; and how many are employed there.

Sir D. Eccles: The location rooms at Board of Trade headquarters, the regional offices and the offices for Scotland and Wales are designed to provide information on all matters connected


with the distribution and location of industry. They are continually used by industrialists and officials seeking information on location problems. No staff is specially employed in location rooms.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Department really instrumental and effective in inducing industries to go to areas where they are really needed? How many industries have gone to Wales and Scotland, for example, as a result of the work of these location rooms? Will the right hon. Gentleman look again to see whether the location rooms are carefully organised?

Sir D. Eccles: The location rooms seem to me to be very well organised. If the hon. Member would like to pay a visit to one, we shall be glad to show it to him.

Jute Industry, Dundee (Diversification)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage the diversification of the jute industry by attracting a paper bag-making firm to establish itself in the Dundee Development Area.

Sir D. Eccles: The Government are prepared to build factories and to give financial assistance for suitable projects in Dundee, including paper bag manufacture.

Mr. Thomson: While thanking the President of the Board of Trade for that Answer, may I ask if he is aware that two Dundee jute firms have decided to diversify themselves by going into the manufacture of paper bags, but have announced that they are to set up a factory in England to do so on the ground of transport costs? Can the right hon Gentleman tell the House what efforts these firms made to persuade him to give the necessary Government help to establish a factory in the Dundee Development Area? Will he do his best to persuade these firms to refrain from this unfortunate decision?

Sir D. Eccles: My office in Scotland has been in touch with these two firms, who said that they had given full consideration to the possibility of setting up in Dundee, but that all the same, they had decided against it.

Douglas, Lanarkshire

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now able to call industrialists' attention to the possibilities of a site at Douglas, Lanarkshire, where there are subsidised houses standing empty, good road and rail communication, abundant water, coal and electricity, surplus sewerage capacity and a labour force which has been virtually strike-free for years.

Sir D. Eccles: We will be able to tell firms which sites in Douglas are available for industrial use as soon as the development plan is approved. If in the meantime an industrialist should want a particular site, the Board of Trade and county council would deal with that case in advance of and apart from the development plan.

Mr. Maitland: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to try to interest industrialists in the area in general and then, if they bite the bait, lead them to a particular site which could be cleared by the county council instead of waiting for the county council to prepare an overall development plan which, I gather might take some time, so that, therefore, we might miss opportunities which exist of trying to interest firms in general in the area where, as my right hon. Friend knows, there are particular sites which could be made available if necessary?

Sir D. Eccles: I do not wish any opportunity to be missed and I am doing what my hon. Friend has asked.

Armoured Vehicles (Export to South Africa)

Mr. Brockway: asked the President of the Board of Trade when permits were granted for the export of eighty Saracen armoured vehicles to the Union of South Africa.

Sir D. Eccles: No permits were required for the export of military vehicles to South Africa.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how shocked many of us have been by the fact that armoured vehicles provided from this country have been used by the Union of South Africa against the African people struggling for equality? In future, will


he take steps to prevent such arms being exported to South Africa for this purpose?

Sir D. Eccles: That is not a question for me. If he wishes to pursue it, perhaps the hon. Member will do so with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Mr. Hamilton: Before he allows the export of these machines, does the right hon. Gentleman take into account the use to which they are likely to be put? Is he aware that the vast majority of progressive opinion in this country deeply deplores the use to which these vehicles are so obviously to be put? Will he take some steps to stop any further consignments to South Africa?

Sir D, Eccles: There is no question of allowing or not allowing these vehicles to go, because no export permits were required and, therefore, the Board of Trade does not come into the matter.

Trading Activities (Complaints)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek powers not already given him either in the Merchandise Marks Acts or in the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act, 1939 in order to safeguard the interests of individuals against the kind of commercial activities about which the Member for West Fife has written him.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will introduce legislation to protect the citizen from the kind of trading activities, details of which have been supplied to him by the hon. Member for Dundee, East.

Sir D. Eccles: In the particular case the hon. Members have in mind, my information is that the purchasers believed on the basis of oral statements that the machines would be profitable and this has proved not to be the case. It is not easy to see how legislation would be a protection in such circumstances, but I will consider any suggestion the hon. Members have to make.

Mr. Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to say that if a Bill were introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule to provide a model set of regulations to govern this kind of practice, he and the Government would push

it through before the General Election? Is he aware that many hundreds of humble people have been robbed of their savings by this company which, as I have said before in this House and say again, is run by scoundrels? Is he prepared to consult with the Home Office to bring back Mr. Levine to this country so that the Official Registrar might ask the questions to which he referred when the company was wound up?

Sir D. Eccles: Consideration would have to be given before any legislation was introduced. In answer to the second part of the supplementary question, the imports for which I am responsible do not extend to this gentleman, out I will consult my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Thomson: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the sales methods used by this company—the Master Vending Machine Co. Ltd.—and the abuses perpetrated on a number of my constituents have revealed grave inadequacies in the law? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again in order to protect ordinary citizens from these "Smart Alec" sales tactics?

Sir D. Eccles: It is by no means clear to me that the kind of statements which lead purchasers to buy these machines are fraudulent. One has to look at all the evidence, and that, I think, is not very clear yet.

Derelict Sites (Clearance)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many schemes for the clearance of derelict sites under Section 5 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, whether by his Department or by grant, have now been approved this year; and what is the total cost of such schemes.

Sir D. Eccles: Two, Sir. Grants to the local authorities in these cases are estimated at £20,500, representing 75 per cent. of the cost of clearance. Many more are under consideration and I am doing my best to reach decisions on them as soon as possible.

Mr. Jay: As we were promised in March that this Section would be reactivated in a vigorous way, can the President of the Board of Trade assure


us that some of the further schemes under consideration will be approved fairly soon?

Sir D. Eccles: I hope so. There are 82 under discussion and 42 have actually reached headquarters.

New Factory Approvals, London and South-East Region

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage, measured by square feet, the total of new factory approvals in the London and South-East Region was of total approvals in Great Britain in the first half of 1958 and 1959, respectively.

Sir D. Eccles: Measured in square feet, 201 per cent. in the first half of 1958 and 17·4 per cent. in the first half of 1959.

Mr. Jay: Does the President of the Board of Trade think that this is an adequate reduction in the share going to London in view of the promises which we had last autumn and this spring that there would be a tightening up in approvals in the London area? Is not this the key to the employment problem in many other parts of the country?

Sir D. Eccles: Probably the figures are better than they look, because many of the approvals given in the London area are for warehouses, canteens and things which could not be put anywhere else; but we are pursuing a tough policy.

Consumer Protection (Committee)

Mr. Owen: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now state the membership of the Committee appointed to consider the question of consumer protection.

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet able to name those appointed to the Committee formed to give additional protection to the consuming public.

Sir D. Eccles: Mr. D. I. Wilson has accepted my invitation to serve on the Committee, the membership of which is now complete.

Mr. Owen: Could the President of the Board of Trade tell the House what is

the composition of the Committee? That is the essential point in the Question.

Sir D. Eccles: The answer to that point was given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 7th July in answer to two Parliamentary Questions.

Mr. Dodds: Having seen the names of the members of this Committee, may I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he appreciates that in the past it has invariably been the custom to appoint a member with Co-operative experience to committees and marketing boards concerned with consumer interests? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the best results will be obtained when there is not a single person with any knowledge of the Co-operative movement and its 13 million members or of local authority activities on the Committee?

Sir D. Eccles: There is a representative from local authorities, but there is an embarrassing number of interests in this country connected with consumer purchases. We looked at this matter very carefully, and I decided that a smallish committtee would be most useful, and I think that we have a very good one.

Mr. H. Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any organisation or identifiable body with as much right to speak for the consumer as the Co-operative movement, with its 13 million members? Why has he gone out of his way to ignore what is undoubtedly the body most representative of the consumer?

Sir D. Eccles: I have not gone out of my way to ignore the Co-operative movement. There are very many people connected with the retail trade who are not represented—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on this Committee. There are two or three members who have well-known affiliations with the party opposite.

Mr. Owen: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order. Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I also will try to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TERRITORIES AND PROTECTORATES, AFRICA

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding the responsibilities and duties he has allotted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in respect of British territories and protectorates in Africa.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies deals with all the territories in Africa for which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are responsible, except Southern Rhodesia and, so far as they come within the responsibility of the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and except also Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland.

Mr. Donnelly: In thanking the Prime Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether the House is to understand that the Secretary of State is charged with the responsibility of seeing that no more men are beaten to death at Hola?

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into how these responsibilities are being discharged? For instance, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can tell him how much the Scottish Church has been disturbed by what seems to be the inability of the Secretary of State under existing legislation to give protection to British citizens in certain parts of our protected territories.

The Prime Minister: It seems to me that the position is fairly clear. There are what have always been known as the High Commission Territories. There are the territories which are purely Colonial Territories—Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Gambia, and the Somaliland Protectorate. There are, since Parliament legislated, territories which in some respects are under the Colonial Secretary and in other respects are dealt with by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—that is to say, the territories within the Federation of Central Africa. The question whether in another Administration some reorganisation of these very onerous duties ought to be undertaken has been raised

by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and other hon. Members. I will certainly give consideration to the matter in the next Administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that France has announced its intention of testing a hydrogen bomb; and, as Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union have ceased for some considerable time testing these weapons, and in view of the Government's policy of promoting a successful Summit Conference, if he will, in conjunction with the respective heads of these States, make an approach to President de Gaulle of France requesting that that country should also suspend their proposed test.

The Prime Minister: So far as I am aware, there is no question of a French test of a hydrogen bomb in the near future.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Prime Minister not seen the reports in the Press? Are we to take it that he has received no information at all about any attempts on the part of the French to conduct nuclear and atomic tests?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I am answering the Question. I understand that there is no question of a French test of a hydrogen bomb character.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister really saying that the French are not proposing to carry out a nuclear test in the near future? Instead of evading the Question on a technicality, would it not be better to deal with the real substance, which is extremely important?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. When I am asked a Question, I try to answer it. There is no question, so far as I know, of a hydrogen bomb test being carried out by the French Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: Then will the right hon. Gentleman answer my supplementary question, which is whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the French Government intend to carry out a nuclear test before long and whether he has had any discussions with the French Government about it?

The Prime Minister: I do not know quite what is the precise definition of a nuclear test. I was answering the Question on the Notice Paper. The right hon. Gentleman now asks a supplementary question—

Mr. Hamilton: You answer it.

The Prime Minister: I will answer any question when I am asked, without any encouragement from the jeers of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton). He has no reason to be offensive, and I will not be offensive with him. He cannot put me down even with his Scottish accent.
We discussed the point raised by the supplementary question in some detail in last night's debate. I think that our purpose should be first to get agreement for the stopping of tests between the three great countries which have been carrying on tests in the hydrogen field. After that, I think that our purpose should be to try to get other countries to accede, but I do not consider that at this time an approach on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would lead to a suspension of the proposed French test in the atomic field.

Mr. Gaitskell: Has the Prime Minister considered that it would be advisable for this matter to be discussed first during the talks at Geneva between the three major Powers? Have any such discussions taken place? Would it not be wise, in anticipation of the obvious dangerous repercussions of a French test on any international agreement in the matter, to take up this matter with the French Government?

The Prime Minister: The first thing is to get the three Powers in the nuclear conference at Geneva to reach agreement. Those three Powers do not include the French Government. I fully agree, however, that this is a matter which we might well discuss at a meeting of what sometimes has been called the heads of the Western Governments, which, of course, would include the French Government.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 13TH JULY—Debate on the Report from the Select Committee on Procedure.
TUESDAY, 14TH JULY—Consideration of the Schemes and Order relating to the Herring Industry and the White Fish Industry, which it is hoped to obtain by 8 o'clock; the Post Office Submarine Cable System Agreement; the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation Accounts; and of the Probation Officers and Clerks (Superannuation) Regulations; the Electricity (Staff Compensation) Regulations; and the South of Scotland Electricity Board Regulations.
WEDNESDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the National Health Services in England, Wales and Scotland.
THURSDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Aircraft Production for Civil and Military Purposes.
FRIDAY, 17TH JULY—Consideration of the Revised Highway Code; the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Order; the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limit on Special Roads) Regulations; and of the Transferred Undertakings (Compensation to Employees) Regulations.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Devlin Commission has yet reported and, if so, when the Report is likely to be published? Can he now give an assurance that arrangements will be made for a debate on the subject before the Recess?

Mr. Butler: The Report has not yet been received by Her Majesty's Government and I have nothing more to add to what my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary said on 30th June, that he hoped to receive it about the middle of July and to publish it as soon as possible


thereafter. It is our wish that there should be a debate before the House rises.
As regards the exact date of publication of the Report, I cannot interfere in the discretion of the Devlin Commission.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the White Paper on the reappraisal of the modernisation programme of British Railways and the finances of the Transport Commission will be published? Can he give an assurance that it will be published in ample time to allow a debate upon it, as well as upon the Transport Commission's Report and Accounts, before we adjourn for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Butler: I could not give that undertaking. I will endeavour to find out the exact date of publication and inform the hon. Member.

Mr. Russell: Has my right hon. Friend been able to give any further consideration to the Motion concerning pensions of certain colonial civil servants, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) and which is supported by Members on all sides?
[That this House draws the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the wide differences between pension scales paid to retired colonial civil servants by Her Majesty's Government and those paid by certain Governments of both dependent and independent territories within the Commonwealth; and urges Her Majesty's Government to use its influence with the Governments of the territories whose scales of pensions fall below present standards to make compensating increases.]

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I have the Motion before me. I have certainly given it consideration and so have my right hon. Friends concerned, but I could not give any undertaking at this stage about a debate.

Mr. Beswick: I wonder whether the Leader of the House noticed that two important Questions on the Order Paper, addressed to the Prime Minister today, were, again, not reached, and that this bears out the remarks, embodied in the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, that it is very unusual to complete the whole of the Prime Minister's

Questions on any day. In view of that, is there any chance of at least that part of the Select Committees' recommendations being adopted?

Mr. Butler: We are to debate the Select Committee's Report on Monday, when I shall be giving the point of view of myself as Leader of the House. In so far as I can give the point of view of the Government, I will do so, and also of my right hon. Friends. I hope that the House will not be disappointed with my reply.

Sir F. Medlicott: Has my right hon. Friend been able to study the Motion on the Order Paper concerning the sale of intoxicants on the new motorways and, if so, can he hold out any hope of a debate on that Motion and on the allied and serious subjects raised by the Report of the Drew Committee to the Medical Research Council?
[That this House regrets the decision made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to permit applications for table licences to supply intoxicants in the service stations of the new motorways in view of the Drew Committee's Report to the Medical Research Council that there is an average loss of 16 per cent. in a motor driver's efficiency after the consumption of only ordinary doses of alcohol; and calls for an early official publication of the report which, though it was promised by the Government when Parliament considered the Traffic Act as long ago as 1955, has hitherto appeared only in the medical journals.]

Mr. Butler: I cannot hold out hope of an actual day. We have a great deal of business on Friday relating to roads and the Highway Code. Whether my hon. Friend will have the ingenuity to bring the matter in on that occasion, I cannot say.

Mr. Foot: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a Motion on the Order Paper, which stands in the names of myself and of 40 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, regarding the detention without trial over long periods of time of British subjects and British-protected persons in Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Kenya?
[That this House condemns the prolonged arbitrary detention, restriction or rustication in Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland of large numbers of Her


Majesty's subjects and British-protected persons who have never been convicted in any Court or charged with any criminal offence; is of opinion that these practices are contrary to Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government immediately to review the emergency powers and other instruments which make possible such denials of justice.]
In view of the great importance and urgency of this matter, especially to the persons concerned, will the Leader of the House provide facilities for a debate before the House rises?

Mr. Butler: There has been an understanding through the usual channels that we shall attempt to have a debate on African subjects before we adjourn. Therefore, I hope that this matter will be covered in such a debate. There is also the report by Mr. Fairn who has gone there from the British Prison Service, and we hope that his report may be published as well. That would aid the matter as regards Kenya. The whole question had, however, better be discussed in an African debate.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consider the provision of an extra hour for Monday's business, in view of the number and complications of the recommendations of the Select Committee and the number of hon. Members who may wish to speak?

Mr. Butler: I would listen to any representations made by hon. Members. At present, we shall stick to 10 o'clock, but I am ready to receive representations from hon. Members.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend given further consideration to the request for a debate on the Commonwealth Education Conference, which opens this coming week?

Mr. Butler: I should like to do so, but we also would like to get away for our Summer Recess. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I have to balance both these considerations.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is Monday's debate on the Report of the Select Committee

on Procedure to be a general debate for the collection of voices rather than upon a Motion expressing an opinion at this stage?

Mr. Butler: The idea would be to take note of the Report of the Committee and to obtain the voices of hon. Members, on both sides, with a view to action at a later date in tabling the necessary Motions. It would be a great mistake to make up our minds until we have heard the views of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Shinwell: To ensure that as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible have an opportunity of speaking in the debate on Monday, could we adopt, to begin with, one of the recommendations of the Select Committee, that there should be five-minute speeches?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can assist in reaching a final decision on the Report by giving an example himself.

Mr. Nabarro: Garrulous Privy Councillors.

Mr. Osborne: Concerning Tuesday's business, if more hon. Members wish to discuss what to some of us is the very important question of the problems of the fishing industry, will the debate be allowed to go beyond 8 o'clock? Why is it to be restricted until 8 o'clock?

Mr. Butler: I think that that is a reasonable time for fish.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can the light hon. Gentleman say what Friday's debate on the Highway Code be based on? Will it be possible to have a fairly wide-ranging discussion?

Mr. Butler: I think that it will be limited only by the limitations of the Highway Code.

Mr. Rankin: The Leader of the House has made two indirect references to the adjournment for the Summer Recess. Is he thinking about it? If so, can he say whether we shall adjourn on 24th July and return in the last week of September, and that the General Election will be held on 15th October?

Mr. Butler: No. All I can say is that I wish I knew.

Mr. H. A. Price: Reverting to Monday's debate, and to the suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), could we not save even more time if we conducted the debate by telegram?

Mr. Blyton: Can the Leader of the House say whether a day will be provided, before we rise, for a discussion of the terrible Report by Mr. Justice Phillimore on the crash, involving loss of life, of an aircraft owned by a private airways company?

Mr. Butler: I should like to consider that in view of the seriousness of the Report. I think that we shall have some difficulty in finding time, but I should like to consider what the hon. Member has said.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would it not help Monday's debate on procedure if Privy Councillors adopted recommendations of the Select Committee and imposed a vow of silence upon themselves?

Mrs. Slater: My hon. Friend, too?

Mr. Farey-Jones: My right hon. Friend referred to a debate on civil and military aircraft production. Will this debate be wide enough to permit the House to discuss the position of the aircraft industry as a whole?

Mr. Butler: I thought that what I announced was a very wide description, and I should have thought that it would have covered the point which my hon. Friend wishes covered.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Reverting to the first part of the supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), may I ask the Leader of the House to tell us when he thinks the Summer Recess will start, since it is a matter of importance to quite a number of hon. Members?

Mr. Butler: It always depends on the good behaviour of hon. Members and the progress made with the business.

AGRICULTURE (ANGLO-DANISH AGREEMENT)

Mr. Speaker: The Chancellor of the Exchequer. Statement.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, from reports in The Times and the Daily Express that the terms of the Anglo-Danish Agreement were communicated last night to a private meeting of certain hon. Members opposite. If this flouting of the dignity of the House is not a matter with which you can deal at the moment, may I respectfully suggest that, as hon. Members opposite have already had opportunity to question Ministers on this Agreement, you will exercise your discretion in allowing a little more opportunity now to hon. Members on this side of the House to put questions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should leave that to my discretion. I know nothing about the truth or falsity of Press reports.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): The House will recall that from 1st to 13th June a working party of officials, on which the United Kingdom was represented, met at Stockholm to examine the problems involved in creating intimate trading arrangements between the seven countries represented there, and whether such arrangements could be so devised as to promote subsequent negotiations for a wider European settlement.
I need not emphasise the importance of this for the future of Europe and of this country. The seven countries which are now moving towards association have a considerable trade among themselves which could grow very substantially. And, even more important, the formation of this association gives us the best hope that we can see of achieving an all-European settlement and the opportunities which will flow from this.
The plan elaborated by officials provided for a Special Agreement on Agriculture and proposed that, as a first step towards the elaboration of it, there should be discussions between the interested countries on trade in specific agricultural products of importance to exporting countries.
It is in that context that there have been discussions between United Kingdom and Danish Ministers over the last three weeks, which, I am glad to tell the House, ended yesterday in complete agreement. I will arrange for the text of the Agreement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The object of the discussions was to deal with a question of fundamental importance to the proposed free trading arrangements between the Stockholm Group of countries. On the one hand, we and all the members of the Stockholm Group have firm obligations to our domestic food producers. On the other hand, while Denmark has a developing industry, her export trade is predominantly in agricultural products. She cannot reasonably be expected to open her market freely to imports of industrial good from her partners within the Stockholm Group unless she has some reasonable assurances about prospects for her own agricultural exports.
The Agreement reached between United Kingdom and Danish Ministers is a sensible solution to this problem. The proposed arrangements do not detract in any way from the Government's obligation to the farmer by which we are bound and will continue to be bound. The present system of guaranteed prices deriving from the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957 remains intact.
In particular, the Government will not take into account, in fixing the guaranteed price of pigs, either the loss of revenue to the Exchequer arising from the removal of the tariff on bacon or the consequences of any reduction in the market price caused by the tariff change.
The specific tariff concessions which we have proposed, namely, on bacon, pork luncheon meat, canned cream and blue veined cheese have been carefully chosen so as to have the minimum impact on trade with Commonwealth countries; there are only limited Commonwealth interests in any of these four products. We have, of course, kept Commonwealth countries informed throughout the discussions.
On the other hand, we believe that these arrangements will be of material benefit to Denmark. The Danish

Ministers are now engaged in recommending these proposals to their Government. I am glad to say now that if the Danish Government are able to accept them so also will Her Majesty's Government.
The next step will be the Ministerial meeting at Stockholm on 20th July.
If agreement can there be reached to proceed to set up free trading arrangements within the Stockholm Group, the agreements worked out between United Kingdom and Danish Ministers will form the agricultural content of those arrangements so far as relations between the United Kingdom and Denmark are concerned. Of course, if there is no decision to create such arrangements in the Stockholm Group, this agreement with the Danish Government will lapse.
Her Majesty's Government have every hope that it will be possible to proceed and thus create a new basis for further negotiations with other countries in O.E.E.C., including the six countries of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Jay: As we have all now been privileged to receive this information, can the Chancellor tell us this? Do the Government expect these concessions which, he says, are of material advantage to Denmark, to mean increased imports from Denmark into this country of bacon, pork and cheese, and, if so, do they expect that to mean a drop in home production of those commodities or an increase in consumption here? Secondly, can he say how soon the negotiations which he mentioned are likely to start within O.E.E.C. for the wider European association which I think we all want to see?

Mr. Amory: One cannot say what the consequences of a reduction in tariff would be. What is certain is that the Exchequer will lose £6½ million, but it is impossible to say at this stage whether the effect will be that Danish importers will secure a higher price for the quantity they at present import or will obtain a bigger volume at a lower price. If it were the latter result—and it is impossible to say—then, again, it would not necessarily be the consequence of that that there would be a lower production of pigs in this country, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, if the volume increases and the price as a result drops


it is not infrequently the case that the market expands.

Mr. Jay: How could it be an advantage to Denmark if there is no increase in the trade?

Mr. Amory: Because she would obtain, or might obtain, up to £6 million of additional revenue from her existing sales.

Mr. T. Williams: As the balance of trade was £40 million in Denmark's favour last year, and is running at the same figure this year, what comparable advantage is Britain likely to obtain out of this concession?

Mr. Amory: We no longer calculate our advantages and disadvantages on a bilateral basis. As sterling is now freely convertible that would be a quite distorted way of calculating our advantage. The important point is that at present we are doing trade to the value of about £350 million with countries in the Stockholm Group, and we see no reason to think other than that if this association comes off the level of trade being done between us may substantially increase.

Sir J. Hutchison: In view of the fact, as my right hon. Friend has said, that it is important that we should keep in mind the possibility of moving towards association with the European Economic Community, has he any reason for thinking that these proposals will be welcomed or resented by the European Economic Community? Is the Community aware of them?

Mr. Amory: Yes, members of the Community are aware of the talks which have been going on, and I have no reason to think that the fact that we are proposing to form this association between us, or discussing that proposition, is being resented at all in the European Economic Community. On the contrary, we have some evidence that some of them have quite welcomed this step forward towards wider economic co-operation over the whole of Europe.

Mr. Bellenger: While we are all interested in the Chancellor's optimism, so far there has been very little initiative on the part of Her Majesty's Government, since the wider European Free Trade Area proposals failed, to get a meeting between the Six and the rest.

May I ask the Chancellor whether, if an agreement comes out of the Stockholm meeting, Her Majesty's Government intend to propose on their own initiative a meeting between the Seven and the Six?

Mr. Amory: Certainly. I would like to repeat that our object in this is that this move should be a step towards a wider association. If that is not the ultimate effect, this may well be a useful move, but we should be disappointed.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) that I did not answer the last part of his question. I cannot, in terms of timing, tell either the right hon. Member or the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) exactly at what date it will be appropriate and useful to take a step to resume negotiations for a wider area, because, of course, at this stage we cannot foresee what pattern such a wider association would have. But our hope is that this move, if it comes off, will prove not only a useful step in itself in the direction of closer economic cooperation in Europe, but a step towards the wider association which we want to see.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of this very important statement, would my right hon. Friend consider inviting the Leader of the House to arrange for us to have a debate upon whether or not there is quite the support for the Outer Seven idea that there was for the wider Free Trade Area originally? Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is very necessary that the horticultural industry, in particular, should be now reassured in view of the fact that a further sacrifice of tariff is involved in the agreement?

Mr. Amory: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend has just said about a debate.
This Agreement, of course, does not deal in any way with horticulture. As my hon. and gallant Friend knows, the products with which this Agreement deals are all products which are price-supported in this country by guaranteed prices and not by tariffs. The tariff on bacon here was put on not to support the industry, but to assist the Exchequer.

Mr. T. Williams: As this is a matter of great importance to agriculture, I am sure that the Chancellor will not object to my putting one more question to him. About 40 per cent. of existing imports of bacon consumed in this country come from Denmark, and 40 per cent. of bacon consumed is home-produced. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is quite happy in the belief that there always should be a restricted market of 40 per cent. of bacon produced at home and consumed in this country?

Mr. Amory: I would not say that there is anything fixed, rigid or sacred about that 40 per cent. What we are doing under the Agreement is to give Denmark an assurance of continuance of her present opportunities in our market, and an assurance that if and as that market grows she will not be denied an opportunity of sharing in any increased consumption. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that out carefully, he will see that vis-à-vis our own industry here we are not in any way detracting from the present guarantees. The present guarantees will remain as complete and as effective as they have been up to now.

Mr. Turton: In view of our firm obligation to provide a market for our home producers, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that last year nearly 2 million cwt. of bacon came from Poland, Holland and Ireland? Will he secure, as far as possible, that any increase in the imports of bacon does not damage the home industry, but will affect our imports from those three countries?

Mr. Amory: What my right hon. Friend has said is very relevant to this question and it does, of course, remind us that if Danish imports into this country expand it will be by no means necessarily at the expense of the home producer. It may well be at the expense of other imports into this country against which Denmark, if this association comes off, will be in a preferential position. If the association comes off the home producer will continue to receive a guaranteed price for all the home production, whether it is big or small.

Mr. Rhodes: May I reinforce the plea made for the matter to be discussed in the House? If a decision is made that we

shall discuss it, can a White Paper be laid showing the relations of trade in the Stockholm Group and the Common Market?

Mr. Amory: I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Sir P. Agnew: In view of the fact that it is too early yet to measure clearly the effects on our home producers of bacon, will my right hon. Friend take into account, nevertheless, that the effects on a highly specialised though small home bacon-curing industry are bound to be disadvantageous? Will my right hon. Friend see whether he cannot ease the path of the factory producers who, at the moment, cannot turn their production into other channels?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend has raised a point of great relevance, but again I will say that it is premature to reach a conclusion on whether the curers would be damaged or not. Their fortunes will depend on the through-put of British pigs going for bacon consumption. It is absolutely impossible to say what the future numbers of British pigs will be. If I had to guess, I would say that they would show a rising rather than a falling tendency, but the fortunes of the industry depend on that fact and we have no grounds at present on which we can form a conclusion on how many home-produced pigs will be directed to the bacon as against the pork market.

Mr. Grimond: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer clarify the effect of this reduction? If it results in a lowering of prices, as seems likely, is it the Government's firm intention not to raise the support price? If not, it is ambiguous to talk about keeping it intact. Further, is it not the case that the entire burden is now being thrown on this country because we and the Danes are excluded from the Six, whereas if we had any agreement with the Six the German market would be more open to Danish products? Has there been any previous consultation with the Common Market countries or with Germany before reaching this Agreement?

Mr. Amory: As regards discussion with Germany, I understand that discussions have been held between the Danes and the Germans on that point.
On the first point, I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The price which may fall as a result of this Agreement if the total quantities of home produce and of imports from all sources are increased is the market price and not the guaranteed price. Under those conditions the subsidy will rise. That is why we have said that any difference in price likely to result under this Agreement will be paid by the taxpayer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—but under those circumstances the taxpayer will be getting a corresponding advantage from the lower prices. The producer, however, will continue to receive the benefit of the guaranteed price, which represents the difference between the guaranteed level and the average level of market prices.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the anxieties which have been expressed to those of us who have bacon curing factories in our constituencies, may I ask the Chancellor whether the Government will be prepared to receive representations from those who speak for the bacon producers of the country?

Mr. Amory: Two of my right hon. Friends have already received representations and I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of them when I say that they will be glad to keep in close touch with the representatives of the curers from now onwards, so that if this comes off we can see how it works out.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, as was suggested in the newspapers this morning, the substance of the statement was disclosed to a private meeting of Conservative Party members upstairs yesterday, and if so, whether that was not a violation of the constitutional rule that on such important matters the House should be informed first?

Mr. Amory: The important point is that we took the earliest opportunity of informing the House of our proposals. The only way this could have been done earlier would have been to interrupt the debate last night for the purpose of making a statement. It was not thought that this would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Gordon Walker: But could not the private meeting have been put off

until today? Why does that have to take precedence of the House? Is it not an outrageous departure from proper constitutional procedure?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that that arises on the statement I have made.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Sir J. Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since 1956 the British and Danish bacon interests have agreed in their own interests that Danish imports should be limited to benefit both Danish and British prices? Is there any reason to suppose that those Danish and British interests should not continue to abide by that kind of agreement, particularly since, if the Agreement is broken, the Danish producers will be in a much weaker position than the British producers, because the British producers will have a guaranteed price to save them and the Danish will not?

Mr. Amory: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said. I see no reason why those useful talks should not continue. It is a voluntary understanding to which my hon. Friend is referring.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his explanation, but in view of my duty to the House I must ask hon. Members to look at the clock.

Miss Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? All the questions asked so far apply to farming, and since the statement was made in preparation for the Stockholm meeting, which will deal with many other matters, there are others of us with national and constituency interests who wish to ask questions of the Chancellor. Only questions on farming have been allowed so far.

Mr. P. Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. A statement has been made by my right hon. Friend which could be of great importance to Commonwealth trade and there has not been a single question put on this matter yet. Can you not possibly arrange for questions to go on for another few moments?

Mr. Willey: Further to that point of order, Sir. When giving your view about that, will you take into consideration the fact that some hon. Members have had a full opportunity of discussing the matter privately in a room upstairs at a meeting at which prior notice was given? I would like to know when that notice was given. The fact is that such a discussion has taken place between some hon. Members of the House. In those circumstances, is it not proper to allow the House generally more licence than is ordinarily allowed following a statement of this nature?

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about the meeting upstairs. I have only heard about it since it was mentioned here this afternoon. I am responsible to the House for seeing that the business of the House is conducted. We have had a lot of questions. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and other hon. Members have said that certain matters have not been discussed, Of course, I do not know what questions will be asked when I call on an hon. Member. I think that the House will agree with me that there has been a reasonable allocation of questions on the statement. No doubt there will be a further opportunity to debate it in full when we have read it, but I must ask the House now to get on with the business which has been set down for today.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order, Sir. A question has already been addressed to the Chancellor which has not yet been answered, and which would only take a quarter of a minute to answer, namely, was there such a meeting held upstairs yesterday, or not? Can you not give time for the Chancellor to answer that question?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker Does it arise out of the statement?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Then perhaps the right hon. Gentleman ought to answer it. He does not seem inclined to do so, however.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. We must get on with business.

Mr. Gordon Walker: On a point of order, Sir. May I ask you whether it

falls within your responsibilities to the House to ensure that important statements on Government policy are made first to the House, and not made to a secret meeting of hon. Members in some other part of the House upstairs, of which notice was given? Has the House no prior right to have information from the Government? If so, have you not possibly the responsibility of protecting that right of the House?

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I am already dealing with a point of order. The hon. and learned Member must resume his seat. I have no responsibility whatever in the matter. I do not know what private meetings are arranged by parties in the House. I am never consulted and I do not desire to be consulted in the matter. My responsibility to the House is to try to get the business of the House carried through in as quick and orderly a manner as possible.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I was not suggesting that you should have prior notice or be consulted, Sir, but, after the events have occurred, might you not be responsible for inquiring into the facts?

Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility in the matter. In the course of my life as an hon. Member of this House I have known of many statements made to committees upstairs consisting of hon. Members of all parties.

Mr. Woodburn: On another point of order, Sir. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has today made a statement which involves further discussions with the other members of the Stockholm Group. The paper manufacturers, of whom there are quite a number in Scotland, are very much disturbed about the repercussions on their industry. I wonder whether the Chancellor can say whether consideration will be given to their difficulties?

Mr. Speaker: I could not allow that as a point of order. No doubt there are all kinds of interests involved in this matter, and no doubt we could consume the whole of today quite profitably in discussing it. Unfortunately, the House has set down certain Orders of the Day and certain business, so it is my duty to see that it goes on, leaving it to hon.


Members, through the usual channels or otherwise, to arrange a full discussion if they want an opportunity for one.
Meanwhile, I must obey the rules of the House, which has set down certain Orders of the Day. That is all I can say about it. It is in my discretion to allow what I consider to be an adequate period for examination and elucidation of a statement, during which hon. Members must make the best use of their opportunities. I cannot continue with this matter now.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Miss Herbison: Further to the original point of order that was raised. You have suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we may have other ways and means of raising these matters. I have listened to the announcement of the business for next week, and this Session of this Parliament is now almost finished. The point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) is the point which I myself wish to raise. What chance are those of us who have an important paper factory in our constituencies—[An HON. MEMBER: "Put down a Question."]—to have to find out from the Chancellor whether any arrangement has been made or guarantee given as a consequence of the meeting with the President of the Board of Trade earlier this week?

Mr. Speaker: The announcement of the business for next week is not rigid and by no means inflexible. These arrangements are frequently altered. The hon. Lady and any other hon. Members can elucidate points in which they are interested by means of Parliamentary Questions. This is still open to them for the remainder of this Session. This is a perfectly proper subject for Parliamentary Questions, though I do not see why it should be included in today's business after the statement we have heard.

Mr. Jay: Further to that point of order. Would it not help the House if the Chancellor could be given the opportunity to answer the question already put to him?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that would be proper, after I have already said that we should stop now, which binds the right hon. Gentleman as well

as other hon. Members. I do not think that it would be proper. The House should bear in mind that we have had a good discussion, so far as we can go at the moment, and that we ought now to get on with today's business.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. You will recollect, Mr. Speaker, that when I asked Question No. 13 earlier today, you advised me not to put a supplementary question, or did not allow me to do so, on the ground that a statement was to be made later. I hope that after taking the trouble to put down a Parliamentary Question on this matter, I shall now be given the opportunity of asking a supplementary question of the Chancellor.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about the hon. Member's Question, but he was proceeding to put a supplementary question without hearing the Answer, and I do not think that that was right. Now that he has had the opportunity of getting a full statement. he can consider it and put down another Question later. I think that that would be the best course for him to adopt.

Sir H. Butcher: On a point of order. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you could indicate in any way that the majority of hon. Members would be happy to allow the conduct of business to remain in your hands?

Mr. Hector Hughes: May I put this point of order very respectfully, Mr. Speaker? You have said that you know nothing about a meeting upstairs. It has been stated by hon. Members that there was a meeting upstairs—a Tory Party meeting—at which disclosures were made. Will you not take notice of what an hon. Member says when he says that there was such a meeting upstairs? Will you not take it as an accepted fact that there was a meeting upstairs, since the Member who states it takes the responsibility for the statements he makes in the House? In common fairness, ought we not to be allowed to put questions?

Mr. Speaker: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. A. Lewis: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). When my hon. Friend the


Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) first raised this matter at 3.30 p.m., you rightly said at that time that you had no knowledge of the point my hon. Friend had raised. The statement has now been made and has not been denied by the Chancellor. Am I not right in suggesting to you that to have a special statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer lasting from 3.30 p.m. to 4.15 p.m., taking up Parliamentary time, on a matter which was discussed upstairs, without you being informed beforehand, is, to say the least of it, very discourteous to you? Asking for your permission to make a statement when, in fact, the Government knew that a statement had been made and discussed was discourteous. Should not the Government at least have the decency, before asking your permission to make the statement, to inform you of that fact?

Mr. Speaker: I regret to say that I suffer under no sense of grievance in that matter.

Following is the text of the Agreement:

Agreed Statement by United Kingdom and Danish Ministers

In preparation for the meeting on 20th July when the Ministers of the seven countries of the Stockholm Group will consider whether to establish free trading arrangements within the Group, Danish and United Kingdom Ministers met in London on 6th, 7th and 8th July. The Danish Ministers were Mr. Krag, Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Skytte, Minister of Agriculture. The United Kingdom Ministers were Mr. Maudling, Paymaster-General, and Mr. Hare, Minister of Agriculture. The Ministers discussed the problem of trade in agricultural products bearing in mind the need for reasonable reciprocity for agricultural exporters within the Group. Similar discussions were taking place between Denmark and other members of the Stockholm Group.

The Danish Ministers asked that the United Kingdom Government should give undertakings about their import and support policy in respect of those agricultural products in which Denmark has an export interest. These undertakings should provide safeguards against frustration of the objectives of any agreement concluded between Denmark and the United Kingdom including any specific tariff concessions contained therein. Furthermore, they asked that any agreement between the two countries should facilitate freer and increased trade in agricultural products by opening to Danish producers increased opportunities in the United Kingdom market.

The United Kingdom Ministers referred to their obligations to home producers and particularly to those arising from the 1947 and 1957 Agriculture Acts, by which they are

bound. The United Kingdom Government, recognising the traditional nature of the trade relations between Denmark and the United Kingdom, did not intend to adopt policies likely to deny Danish producers the opportunity to maintain their market in the United Kingdom for commodities of concern to them or to share in any increase in the United Kingdom market for those products.

Further, the United Kingdom Ministers undertook to recommend to their colleagues that, as part of the proposed arrangements within the Stockholm Group, the United Kingdom tariff on imports of the following products from Denmark and the other members of the Group should be abolished according to the following timetable:*

Bacon and canned pork luncheon meat†
Reduction of 50 per cent. on 1st July, 1960.
Reduction of 50 per cent. on 1st July, 1961.

Blue Veined Cheese
To be abolished on 1st July, 1960.


Canned Cream

Danish Ministers asked for a statement of the United Kingdom Government's policy regarding the production of pigmeat, eggs and milk. United Kingdom Ministers replied that on eggs, milk and pigmeat it is the Government's objective that production should be more economic. On the volume of the output of eggs, the Government's policy continues to be that less eggs should be produced, as was stated in the White Paper Cmnd. 696 of March, 1959. On milk, the United Kingdom Ministers recalled that both in 1958 and 1959, at the time of the annual price reviews, the policy had been that less milk than was then in prospect should be produced.

The Government's policy continues to be that producers of milk in the United Kingdom should not in general be encouraged to produce more milk than is required for the liquid milk market, after allowing for a sufficient reserve to ensure that the market is adequately supplied throughout the year. It is also the Government's policy that increased consumption of liquid milk should be encouraged. On pigmeat, the Government's policy continues to be as stated in the 1958 and 1959 White Papers.

Danish Ministers also asked for an undertaking that the removal of the United Kingdom tariff on bacon would not be frustrated by subsidies. United Kingdom Ministers reserved their right to determine annually the guaranteed prices for pigs, with due regard inter alia to changes in costs. But they agreed to recommend that subsidy policy should not be used in such a way as to render nugatory the opportunity given to Danish producers in the United Kingdom market under this agreement.

* For planning purposes it is assumed that the first tariff reductions under any free trade arrangements agreed between the Stockholm Group countries will take place on 1st July, 1960.

† Definition of canned pork luncheon meat; Tariff Subheadings 16.02 (c) (1) (b) (i) and (iii): Canned meat consisting wholly of ground or chopped pork with or without curing or seasoning ingredients or farinaceous fillers.

The United Kingdom and Danish Ministers recognised that industries in each country engaged in trade with the other may be materially injured by the competition of dumped or subsidised exports from third countries. The United Kingdom Government has powers under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, to impose, consistently with its international obligations, anti-dumping or countervailing duties where such material injury is caused or threatened. Ministers agreed to recommend that, if after consultation it is established that such injury is caused or threatened, their Governments should consider taking action consistent with their own legislation and with their international obligations to remedy the injury or prevent the threatened injury; any matters arising in this connection should be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.

Ministers agreed to recommend that provision should be made within any agreement between the two Governments covering the matters dealt with in this statement for the periodic examination of its operation and of any particular difficulties that may arise.

The Ministers agreed that if it is decided to establish free trading arrangements among members of the Stockholm Group, the agricultural content, so far as the United Kingdom and Denmark are concerned, will be as set out in this joint statement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Heath.]

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. Heath.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order for consideration of Lords Amendments read.

4.16 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, That the Lords Amendments be now considered.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I should not be in order in this matter if I were to try to discuss the merits or quality of the Amendments, but their quantity must, I think, be unprecedented. The Notice Paper now contains no fewer than 217 new Amendments. They include 12 new Clauses and three new Schedules, and the Bill which left this House, printed on 91 pages, will, if the Lords Amendments are now to be added to it, have about one-third of its bulk added to it. It will then amount to about 124 pages, and this is a Bill which was very carefully considered in Committee, on Report, and, of course, both on Second and Third Reading in this House.
Now we are asked to accept an addition of this quantity and order without any proper opportunity of going through the Amendments in the way we do with the ordinary part of a Bill, first in Committee, then on Report, and so on. It may be said that a lot of these Amendments are purely drafting, and I would say to the Minister at once that if he is prepared to drop all the Lords Amendments which are not drafting Amendments, he will have no difficulty.
But there is a great deal more in it than that. There are a number of Amendments which were made in another place of a complex character, some introducing some considerable changes, and there are some really substantial and controversial points. One particular proposal of the Government appeared as Clause 34—I think it was—in the original Bill. It has now become, or will become if the Lords Amendments are accepted, not one Clause but a whole part of the Bill, and it has been most substantially altered and complicated for the purpose.
All that we can do is to put down Amendments within the scope of the


Lords Amendments, and that, as the House knows, is a very restricted matter indeed. We cannot put up full and reasonable alternatives, and we cannot give the matter the detailed consideration which it would have got if it had been done at an earlier stage.
This particular point is one to which—so we were assured twice by the right hon. Gentleman—he has given deep thought. I do not know whether the points to which the right hon. Gentleman gives deep thought are more firmly embedded in Government policy than those to which he pays scant attention, but the results of his deep thought are these great changes made in another place. I am not on the merits. What I do say is that it is disgraceful that the Government should bring in a Bill of this complication and length, carry it through the House, with quite substantial Amendments in this House, then take it to another place and there add one-third to its contents and make alterations of a most sweeping character.
It is not the way to deal with legislation, particularly when we look at what the Bill is about. The first sentence in the Explanatory Memorandum reads that its main purpose
is to provide a market value basis for compensation for the compulsory purchase of land, and this is dealt with in Part I.
That means that the financial side of the Bill is predominantly important. The Bill will affect the amount of money paid by local authorities and others, including Government Departments, to private citizens in certain circumstances. The Financial Memorandum, which appeared with the Bill when it was first presented, made it clear that it would add about one-quarter to local authorities' costs of compulsory acquisition in an ordinary year. It is no small matter.
This has been altered and added to in the Lords. As far as I can see, out of the 217 Amendments which we are asked to consider, over 50 raise questions of Privilege. What has happened in another place is that they have dealt with a Bill which, from that point of view, and in its effects on local authorities, is substantially a financial Bill, and have made sweeping alterations to it. I am not criticising the other place as such in

the least. What I am criticising is the Government's conduct.
We have had two or three Bills in this Session in which the Government have changed the whole Bill two or three times in the course of the proceedings. That they should do so in this House is at least tolerable, if inconvenient, but in this case they have taken the Bill to another place and changed it there, which makes the proper consideration of financial provisions by this House quite impossible and has the effect of putting a blunderbuss at the head of the House and saying, "Pay now."
We all know the reason for the hustle of the moment. It is that the Government were rightly pressed by Scottish hon. Members to have a re-enactment for Scottish purposes, and it will take them a little time, no doubt, to get the re-enactment through. That is no excuse for what has happened. If the Government wanted a Bill, it was their business, in the first place, not to cover every drafting point, not to include the kind of alterations which were made in Committee here, but to ensure that they would not need to add another whole part to the Bill, 12 new Clauses, in another place after the Bill had left us. It is a complete and scandalous abuse of Parliamentary procedure that we should be asked to consider questions of this character and at this time.
It may be said, "If you object to that, what do you suggest?" I would, first, go into the past and suggest to the Government that when they intend to make alterations of this kind affecting money and the right of the subject, they should make up their mind, if they have one, before they bring in the Bill and not afterwards, because this is a matter which goes beyond mere Amendments. Secondly, having shown that they are a drifting and drafting Government, and do not know where they are going or what features to put in the Bill, and having put us in this ridiculous position, it is their business to take that into account and to drop these new proposals, not on their merits—I am not talking about that—but because it is not fair to the House and not right under our constitutional procedure that the proposals should be put before us in this way and at this stage of the Bill.
If this were allowed to go without protest, we might as well give up half


our right of legislating in this House. If a Bill which is fundamentally a financial Bill—not in a technical sense, but fundamentally a financial Bill—is treated in this way, and that is allowed to pass without protest, and if the Government have their way on this occasion, who is to stop not only them but any other Government of the future from doing the same thing and from passing the powers which ought to rest in financial matters with the elected Members in this House to another place, where they have no nonsense about elections?
I hope that the House will divide against the proposal because of the character of the Bill, the quantity of the Amendments and the thoroughly bad effect which procedure of this sort is bound to have on the proper position of the two Houses in matters of this kind.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I associate my Scottish colleagues with the protest made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) about the manner in which these Amendments have been presented.
We in Scotland have a much greater grievance against the Government over the Bill than have the English Members. It will be remembered that when the Bill originally passed through the House considerable criticism was levelled at the manner in which the Government had handled it, not only by officials in Scotland but also by the legal profession and the Faculty of Advocates itself. Now we have this great bundle of Amendments from which, once again, we have to extract all the Scottish references to what is purely Scottish legislation.
The Bill deals with no fewer than five different purely Scottish Acts. Not satisfied with that, we are asked, in the course of the Amendments, to undertake the amending of a still further Scottish Act—an Act which, by the way, has very little to do with town and country planning. Not satisfied with having incurred considerable criticism about this, the Government have sought in another place to commence to amend the Land Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act. 1845.
This is not the way in which we ought to be treated. I do not know what the Law Officers are thinking. It is disgraceful conduct on the part of the Law Officers to allow the law of Scotland to be

dealt with in this manner. When we were dealing with town and country planning, it was bad enough to have to try to disentangle the Scottish provisions from the English provisions and to apply them to the suitable Scottish Acts, but the Government have gone further and have introduced another Bill in the course of these Amendments.
The Amendments make considerable changes to the law of Scotland, and I wonder what opportunity the local authorities, who are vitally concerned about this matter, had to consider the Amendments. As far as I know, not a single local authority association in Scotland has considered these 60 pages of Amendments, very many of which concern purely Scottish legislation. Has the County Councils Association considered the Amendments? Have the Counties of Cities considered them? Has the Convention of Royal Burghs considered them?
The Joint Under-Secretary of State ought to tell us what steps the Government have taken to ensure that the local authorities have had an opportunity to consider the Amendments so that we might discuss them properly in the House today. As far as I know, there has been no consultation. Very many of the local authorities affected by the further Amendments have had no opportunity to discuss them. We have had them for only a short time I am convinced that no local authority in Scotland has had an opportunity to go through the Amendments to disentangle the Scottish provisions from the English provisions, to apply them to the Bill which is itself, of course, an entanglement of Scottish and English provisions, and then to apply them to the appropriate Scottish legislation.
This is an insult to Scotland. It is making a mockery of the rights of Scottish hon. Members to discuss alterations to Scottish law. I am surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland has the courage even to appear in the House to defend them. I understand why the Lord Advocate is not here. I wonder what the Faculty of Advocates will say about this. It had a great deal to say about the Bill originally, and I am convinced that if the Faculty looks at the present Bill it will have a great deal more to say.
4.30 p.m.
This is an intolerable imposition on Members of Parliament. Not content with that, the Government expect us to deal with the Bill in two and three-quarter hours and to be finished by 7 o'clock. It takes two and three-quarter hours to understand what the Amendments are all about, quite apart from appreciating the arguments for and against them.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It takes almost that time to read them.

Mr. Ede: It takes nearly that time to put them from the Chair.

Mr. Willis: It certainly would take that time for the Minister to get up and say, "Purely drafting." Yet we are expected to deal with them all in that time. This is an intolerable imposition and I hope that we shall divide the House in protest against the manner in which this Bill is being dealt with.

Mr. William Ross: Most of us have taken a passing interest, or, rather, have been prevented from taking a passing interest, in this piece of legislation since it was sprung upon us many months ago. We had many sittings in Committee. The Bill came out of the Committee bearing little resemblance to the one which went in. When we considered it on Report the Government produced pages and pages of Amendments, and the Bill that got a Third Reading in the House was not recognisable as being in any way related to the Bill which got a Second Reading.
Hon. Members can see the original Bill which I am holding in my hand, and then back comes the present Bill with this book of Amendments. It is rating the House very small if the Government think that we can consider all these Amendments, have a Royal Commission and obtain the Royal Assent to this Measure in such a short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said that we in Scotland have had a particular "grouse" right from the start. I would defy anyone, be he Scot, English, Irish or Welsh, to read this legislation and say what it means in respect of Scottish law.

Mr. S. Silverman: Or English law, either.

Mr. Ross: After one has sorted out the English law one has to read special applications in respect of Scotland. One only has to read any one of these applications to appreciate how difficult it has been for us to try to cope with the work on this Bill But we now have this booklet consisting of nearly 60 pages of Amendments. The Amendments are in full in respect of the English law. Then we get a strange conglomeration of Amendments related to ancient Scottish application and new Scottish application.
I spent one hour on one Amendment trying to find out what it meant. Eventually, having discovered what it meant, I then found that that to which it was applied had already been the subject of an English Amendment. Nevertheless, with my customary Scottish patience I perservered. I went through another Amendment. I spent three and a half hours on it before I discovered that there was a misprint. There is not even a Government Amendment to put that misprint right.
It was one of my duties at one stage during the war to be sent along to examine, from the point of view of security and safety, the Chinese system of coding and cyphering and to find out what margin of safety there was. I can assure the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland that the truth or enlightening or common sense, if there be any, is more securely locked up in this Bill than was ever in any Chinese cryptogram. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General has found the Amendment in which there is a misprint, or whether he is going to put it into law? It just does not make sense.
We have been coping with these sorts of difficulties concerning Scottish legislation and, added to that, there is the complete inability of anybody who is answering for Scotland to satisfy us about the justification for what is being done in relation to Scotland. We have been told that there was no demand for this Bill in Scotland in the first place. It has no justification in relation to the number of hardship cases which have been cited.

Mr. Willis: In one case we were told that it dealt with something which did not exist.

Mr. Ross: The words actually used, I think, were that we were dealing with something which was of purely academic interest to Scotland. No doubt, this academic interest will have been duly amended in another place. We have had this slipshod treatment of Scotland all the way through.
The basis of our argument today is this: it is difficult to understand all this as it applies to England, and it is much more difficult to understand it in its Scottish application. We have had very little time in which to consider it. There has been not time for the local authorities, who are the people who will have to find the additional millions of pounds, to consider it and to convey to us the results of their consideration and there is no time for us to draw the attention of the local authorities to what is coming upon them from this Government of wonder men. It is not good enough.
I want to know exactly why the Scottish Office continues to be dragged along and deliberately moulded into certain sections of English law. There is no justification for it. [Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) laughs. Does he not appreciate the glories of this Government of his? Here we have a Bill that has come from another place. Nine months have been spent on it, and now it has been decided to change the word "roads" to "highways". It took all that time to make that decision.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does not my hon. Friend realise that that is the most intelligible of all the Amendments which are proposed?

Mr. Ross: Yes. I was delighted by a piece of Liberace language.
I am sorry that one of the Amendments from another place is not being accepted by the Government. Where, normally, we talk about something happening within one year of the passing of an Act, we now get language like "at the first anniversary of the passing of the Act." Are we to have bonfires on that first anniversary, duly lit by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, with the Secretary of State for Scotland handing him a torch? This is a hotchpotch of utter nonsense. What astounds me, too, is the feudal subservience of the Government to everything that comes from another place.
We have here 60 pages of Amendments, and I think that only two of those Amendments have been rejected. This bland acceptance of lordly suggestion is something that amazes me. I feel that the Government have no proper appreciation of what has come from another place. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, or one of his minions, legal or otherwise, will tell us about some of the slipshod references to Scotland. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury need not get worried; we have only just begun. Quite apart from references to Scottish Measures that have caused difficulty, there are other slights to Scotland which require a certain amount of justification.
Our main grievance is that so many new Clauses and new Schedules have been introduced at a stage when the Minister does not even require to explain them to us and when, if I ask for an explanation, I will have exhausted my right, although not my ability to speak. It means that Ministers can shelter under this new practice of foisting on us, under the guise of Lords Amendments, something that is completely new, something which, normally, would have a Second Reading and Committee and Report stages before it went elsewhere. It is to this more than anything else that I object, because if there is anything that requires teazing out and sorting, and the questioning of Ministers, it is these proposals under town and country planning. We are just not going to have the opportunity to do this.
I doubt whether you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when putting these Amendments to the House could read them in the time that the Government have allowed for discussion. I want to register my protest as strongly as I can at the treatment that Scotland has received all through. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) mentioned that the Faculty of Advocates had voiced strong disapproval, but that voice is now silenced because the man who sent the protest is now one of Her Majesty's judges in Scotland. I wonder what he will make of this Bill if anything comes before him in respect of it.
What has the Solicitor-General got to say about this?

Mr. Willis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got nothing to say.

Mr. Ross: The best thing he can do is to say nothing in this case. It would probably be very much better if he just tendered his resignation and let Scottish law be looked after by English Ministers as well, because this is something that no honourable Scotsman would be prepared to put up with any longer.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I endorse and press the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Some of us spent months dealing with this Bill in Committee, and on Second and Third Reading. We spent many weary hours, during the course of our discussions, pointing out anomalies in the wording of the Bill, but we got very little change out of anything we said or proposed.
When the Bill came up for Third Reading we still thought that it was a bad Bill. Some of my hon. Friends thought that the policy behind it of free market value for the price of land was wrong. I do not disagree with that, but when the Bill left this House it was not the kind of Bill which the Committee, or, at any rate, those of us who took part in the discussions, wanted. It is amazing to find that when it comes back from the other place there is this mass of Amendments. It is even more amazing to be told that we must get the Bill through by seven o'clock. That is utterly impossible. I understand that arrangements have now been made for the House to discuss the Bill after that time, but if we sat all night the House would not be able properly to appreciate this vast mass of Amendments which has come from the other place.
Some of the Amendments are completely new Schedules. Nobody has had time to consider them properly. I have not had the opportunity of consulting local government authorities with whom I am in contact, and apparently the same thing has happened in Scotland. The House will, therefore, be discussing nearly 60 pages of Amendments without adequate knowledge, or without having had time to size up exactly what the proposed wordings mean.
May I give one illustration? The Memorandum to the original Bill contained an estimate of cost to local authorities. It said that the Bill would

result in a cost of about £8½ million extra to local authorities for the purchase of land. I have searched through these Amendments from the other place, and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, a great many of the Amendments are financial ones. It is impossible to say whether there will be any extra cost to local authorities because of these Amendments. We have no Memorandum. Nobody thinks it worth while telling the House of Commons whether the Amendments will add to the costs of local authorities when taking land for public purposes of various kinds.
This is a gross abuse of Parliamentary procedure. It is a gross abuse of the patience of hon. Members who try to be useful in discussions on these matters. To ask us to take this huge list of Amendments and get through it in one day is asking a little too much and will result in Amendments being made which the House itself simply does not understand the effect of.
Anything of that kind is an abuse of the procedure of the House of Commons and I want to register my protest. We ought to have almost a week on this. We tried hard to understand the original Bill. In spite of about 26 meetings in Standing Committee, at the end we still were not clear exactly what it meant, and neither were some of the Law Officers. Nobody in the House now, not even the Minister himself, will be able to say what the effect of these Amendments, if they are passed, will be on the work of local authorities in the purchase of land and the effect on thousands of landowners up and down the country. I hope that this protest will be noted and that the House will not again be asked to deal with a Bill of this kind in such a short and niggardly time.

Mr. Frank Bowles: I agree with my hon. Friends in protesting against the abuse by the Government of this House of Lords Amendment procedure. Fifty-seven pages of Amendments have been handed down to us. I agree they were ordered to be printed on 29th June and it is now only 9th July. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) said, there were 26 sittings in Committee upstairs. We then had the Report stage, when the House was considering the same Bill


which had been presented on Second Reading. Now we find that the Government are handing us a book containing 57 pages of Amendments and hoping to get through them in a few hours. I agree that the rule is now suspended because of the introduction of Private Business set down for seven o'clock. We now have to meet again on this business at ten o'clock or earlier. No doubt this most complicated Bill will be forced through tonight, or in the small hours of the morning.
This is putting the House of Lords above the House of Commons. We are allowed one debate upon each of these Lords Amendments occupying 57 pages. There is no Second Reading of them, no Committee stage, no Report stage and no Third Reading. These Amendments are handed to us. We have to take them or leave them. The Government have their majority and the Minister will say, "I beg to move, 'That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment' ". There may be a debate on it. Clearly, there can be, but if the House of Commons is to do its duty it will be here all over the weekend.
If it does not do that, then the House of Commons has been bemused by the procedure and placed in a very awkward and scandalous position by the Government using the House of Lords, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) pointed out, to push through things which were never in the Bill in the first place. My hon. and learned Friend said that there were three or four more Schedules, comprising, also, matters of Privilege.

Mr. Mitchison: There are 12 new Clauses.

Mr. Bowles: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.
This is the last stage of this vitally important Bill. I am not able to talk about the Scottish aspects of it, but my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) have made their protests already. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham has made his protest. I join with my hon. Friends in protesting at this extraordinary abuse. In my experience in the House of Commons I cannot remember any occasion when the House of Lords has been used by the

Government to force through a tremendous number of Amendments to a Bill which had passed the House of Commons after very careful consideration. I register my most profound protest against what the Government are doing.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: I add my voice to the volume of protests being made this afternoon at the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends see fit to impose upon the House. I was one of those who sat in Committee on the Bill. It happens to be one of the local government interests which I follow in the House. We had twenty-six sittings in Committee. We examined the Bill thoroughly. In deference to the right hon. Gentleman, I acknowledge that on the last two or three sittings we gave him a great deal of business, very largely as a result of an appeal made by him. There was always the threat of the guillotine if we did not. We endeavoured to co-operate with him to conclude the Committee stage and bring the Bill back to the House on Report.
My objection is this. We are now confronted with a mass of new Clauses, new Schedules and Amendments, all of which could have been dealt with on the Standing Committee stage; but the Minister was in a frame of mind where he absolutely refused to make any concession, beyond one or two very small and minor ones, to the propositions we put before him in Committee.
It indicates also that the Minister does not understand the Bill. Those who advise him do not understand the implications of what they are trying to do. Otherwise, all these propositions now before us would have been in the Bill originally. First, the Government, not knowing what they were doing, brought a Bill before the House which they did not understand and they were not fully aware of what they were trying to do. Secondly, the Government took the Bill to the House of Lords to make very important Amendments and additions. They now bring it back and expect us to accomplish in about two and a half hours what normally should take, at the very least, two or three days in Committee in the House. There are some vital and most important proposals in this mass of Amendments, new Clauses and new


Schedules which are worthy of debate and discussion.
Whilst it is true that the Government are entitled to their legislation, the Opposition is entitled to time for debate. We are as much concerned as Government supporters with the consequences of the Bill. As an Opposition, we have a right to all the time we want to argue our case and analyse thoroughly the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are inflicting upon the country. We are not being given that time. We are being deprived of it. An attempt is being made completely and radically to change the form and content of the original Bill by a back-door method.

Mr. Bowles: And one Reading in this House.

Mr. Sparks: As my hon. Friend says, we are now subjecting to a totally different procedure vitally important propositions, which normally would have taken a very different course in the House if they had been introduced here, as they should have been and as we are entitled to request that they should have been, in the original stages of the Bill.
The Government are floundering so much on this important Bill. They do not know what they are doing They are abusing the procedure of the House. There is a case for the Opposition refusing completely to permit the Government this afternoon to proceed to debate these Lords Amendments until the Government have made up their mind to give the Opposition sufficient and ample time to discuss the propositions. That is a reasonable request.
It is physically impossible to absorb the substance and effect of the mass and volume of proposed Amendments in a matter of two hours this afternoon, or, indeed, in one whole sitting. Shall we witness the spectacle later of the right hon. Gentleman merely rising and formally moving the Lords Amendments, without giving any explanation of the consequences? That is the method to which he will have to resort. He will never push this business through, even in one sitting, without resorting to a formal moving of all these Amendments and then leaving us and the House to discover what they are all about.
That also is a complete abuse of the procedure of the House of Commons. After all we did in Standing Committee to help the right hon. Gentleman, it is most unworthy of him to turn around and bring in a load of Amendment from another place, completely change the fundamentals of the original Bill and expect us all to remain dormant and silent and acquiesce in these major changes. Town and country planning legislation is a major matter. It is one of the most complicated of all legislations to which one can give consideration. Even lawyers find great difficulty with it.

Mr. S. Silverman: Especially lawyers.

Mr. Sparks: Yes, especially lawyers. Right through the Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman tried to cage a conception of what he called free market value. He has been trying to put it in a cage and fasten it there. So there it is. But he has never been able to do that. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman hopes that all these Amendments from another place will provide an adequate cage in which to place this formula. But I do know that town and country planning legislation is extremely complicated and difficult and the consequences to the community and to local authorities are vital and important.
5.0 p.m.
Originally the Bill put an additional burden of £9 million on the ratepayers. These new Clauses, Amendments and Schedules will probably add another £9 million. We do not know and the Minister will not tell us. We are entitled to an adequate explanation of these propositions from another place. We expect such an explanation. If it is not forthcoming, because of lack of information from the Government, we ought to divide against all of them. If we did that, we should not finish by seven o'clock tonight; we should want three full days in order to do that.
I am not suggesting that we should be as awkward as the right hon. Gentleman has been over this matter. All we ask is that there should be a measure of co-operation between the Government and the Opposition. We in the Opposition have our rights and duties. If the Government think they are going to ride


roughshod over the Opposition and force fifty-seven pages of Amendments down our throats in two hours, we are entitled to object and to demand adequate time in which to discuss this major matter and all its consequences for the ratepayers and for local authorities. We do not think the time provided is adequate. I do not think we can proceed with the consideration of this mass of Amendments, which change the Bill completely from its original form, if we have not the time to examine and understand the significance of them.

Mr. S. Silverman: May I appeal to the Minister—

Mr. Ross: It would be a waste of time.

Mr. Silverman: I hope not. I sincerely appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter in the light of what he has heard this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) said that the Opposition has rights in this matter and that the Government ought to provide sufficient time for the Opposition to consider this extraordinary document with proper care. I agree, but I wish to suggest to the Minister that there is more involved here than the rights of the Opposition.
We have a responsibility in the House of Commons for the legislation which ultimately we enact. Although undoubtedly there are some points of principle in this Bill on which the division of opinion follows party lines, there are a great many others where there are differences of opinion about the amendment of the present law; about the effect of the present Act; the consequences of some Amendments to the Bill and the consequences of Amendments proposed from another place, which have nothing whatever to do with points of principle on which the parties may differ.
May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one or two of them? I hope it will not be regarded as presumption on my part if I say that I understand the difficulty of the Government. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken about their local government experience of town and country planning. I have not much local government experience in that regard, though I did serve for many years on the estates committee of one of the larger provincial

cities. But I think that I have a fair professional experience of the working of the present Act. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what I mean when I say that as a result of the interpretation put upon various parts of the Act by the courts, especially in recent years, there has emerged a situation which did require review, amendment, clarification and codification.

Mr. James MacColl: Surely the responsibility rests with the Prime Minister who, in 1957, wrecked a perfectly good system by bringing in an unworkable financial arrangement? That brought about a crisis which led to the Government bringing in this muddled Bill.

Mr. Silverman: J think my hon. Friend is right about some of the major difficulties. He will know from his own professional experience—

Mr. MacColl: I have had none.

Mr. Silverman: I thought perhaps my hon. Friend had had some experience. Perhaps he will take it from me that there are a number of other difficulties arising out of decisions in the courts, some with penal consequences, that have nothing to do with the broad matters of principle about which there has always been conflict between the two sides of the House.
I can see the almost irresistible temptation to the Government to use the opportunity provided by the introduction of this Bill to try to do some of the clarification and codification which is necessary. I suggest to the Minister that one reason for the difficulties is the jumble of conflicting and almost unintelligible decisions by the courts, and that arose precisely because the wording of the original legislation was never examined adequately. A large part of the difficulties are difficulties of verbal interpretation. Surely, in a situation of that kind, the very worst way to try to clear up the mess is to invite Parliament at a late stage, under duress, without adequate time, to pass sixty pages of highly technical jargon.
It is not right and the Government will not get a satisfactory result. We on this side of the House know perfectly well that the Government have a majority, that they can call a Division, that they


can move the Closure. The Division bells may ring and we may troop through the Lobbies, and at the end of the day the Government will have won a victory. I do not know when, I hope it will not be today, but eventually the Government will get the Bill as they want it. But that will be no satisfaction at all if the result is to make confusion worse confounded.
It seems to me that the opportunity of doing what the Government wanted to do was lost at the early stage in the discussions on this Measure. There was no urgency to bring in this Bill, but the Government decided to bring in a Bill dealing with town and country planning. The proper time to give consideration to the scope of the Bill, and what kind of improvement it was desired to make, was surely at that stage. Then it could have been discussed during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee and Report stages and on Third Reading. Here we have what is, I think—I have not looked the matter up—a unique event in my experience as a Member of this House. We get a volume of Amendments from another place which change the character of the Bill so much that they include three Amendments to the Title. I cannot remember a similar occasion.
It is not the purpose of Amendments from another place—I do not say that there is no right—to alter the scope of a Bill altogether. Amendments from another place should not be such as would be out of order, as being outside the scope of the Bill, unless its Title were amended to bring them into order. That is not the right way to do it.
I will not deal with any of the Amendments in detail, there will be an opportunity later to do that. I have already said that some of the Amendments deal with those parts of the law which have penal consequences, and those very Amendments are, as I understand it, retrospective. In other words, in this matter and at this stage of the Bill we are asked to alter the criminal law of the country with retrospective effect. The right hon. Gentleman must, on reflection, realise that that is not the way to do it
As my hon. Friend the Member for Acton said a few minutes ago, we are dealing with one of the most complicated, complex, obscure branches of our

law and, at the same time, a branch of the law that can at any moment affect any citizen in the country. The difficulties of obscure and complicated legislation have resulted in a situation which undoubtedly needs amendment, but let us bring proper attention to bear upon the things that need amendment. Let us, at any rate, do things in order, and for heaven's sake let us at least know what it is that we are doing.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have no doubt whatever about the precise bearing and effect of every altered comma in these sixty pages, not merely on the Bill but on the whole series of town and country planning legislation over the past ten years. I am sure that he would not take the responsibility of asking us to accept all these alterations unless he were absolutely sure—more sure than the courts of the Queen's Bench or of the Court of Appeal, or of the House of Lords—what they all meant and what effect is going to be produced.
We are humble Members of the House of Commons and we do not pretend to know. It has got to be explained to us. We are like the man from Texas. It must be put into our hands and explained, if possible, in words of one syllable. There are sixty pages of it and there are one and a half hours left out of which we must take the time for any Divisions that we decide to have. This is not the way to legislate, and certainly not the way to legislate about a matter which can only be considered detail by detail
I have nothing to say about my hon. Friend's difficulties in Scotland.

Mr. Willis: They are worse.

Mr. Silverman: I heard my hon. Friend with great sympathy, and perhaps with less understanding than sympathy, because I do not pretend to understand the English law, let alone the Scottish law. But apart from any difficulties which there may be in Scotland, the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House that there are considerable difficulties in England. That is why these Amendments have been tabled in another place. But that is not what the right hon. Gentleman set out to deal with when he started the legislation. I have the original Bill and the Explanatory Memorandum begins by stating:
The main purpose of this Bill is to provide a market value basis for compensation for


the compulsory purchase of land, and this is dealt with in Part I.
Parts II, III and IV deal with a variety of miscellaneous matters, but the main purpose is quite clearly stated to be the provision of a market value basis for compensation.
That is one of the matters on which, probably, there may or may not be differences of opinion and on which the differences of opinion may or may not follow party lines. But of the Amendments from the House of Lords—the 60 pages of them—very few have anything to do with that, as I understand. They are dealing with the parts of the Bill that are not the main purpose for which the Bill was introduced. As I have said, some of them will be out of order unless we begin by amending the Title so as to bring them within order.
5.15 p.m.
I think that I have been as long as I ought to be, and perhaps a little longer, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will believe me when I say that I am not here making any party point of any kind. I am not concerned on the Motion now before the House with any question of Government advantage or Opposition advantage. I am not concerned with Government or Opposition advantages on the merits of any of the proposals, and I am not even concerned with Government or Opposition advantage in the procedural sense of the word and with the ordinary give-and-take of conflict between the Government and the Opposition.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe me when I say that I am sincerely directing his attention to the un-desirability on general grounds of dealing with this kind of complicated question in this hasty, ill-considered way. It ought not to be done, and, if it is done, it will not produce a satisfactory result.
Before I sit down, may I say that on Monday next we shall be discussing for a whole day the procedure of Parliament with a view to improving it in such a way as to make it a real workmanlike machine for the job which the electors have given us the responsibility of carrying out. It is a poor prelude to considering alterations and improvements in our general procedure if we are so to—I will not say abuse—misuse existing procedures in order to carry through by

mere weight of numbers in a short time a series of amendments to the law on important questions when nobody, or scarcely anybody, in the House has the faintest idea what it is that he is being asked to do or what it is that he is doing. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to think again.

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who addressed himself particularly to me, and to other hon. Members.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that there were 217 Lords Amendments on the Notice Paper. The vast majority of them are of a drafting or consequential character, as I am quite sure he appreciates. The hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) raised the financial point. The financial effect of these Amendments is marginal. I agree that in some of the like Clauses local authorities may. on occasion, be required to purchase earlier than they would otherwise do property which they want to purchase in any case. but the whole of these Amendments make no significant difference to the financial effect that has been given to the House before. I think it was the hon. and learned Gentleman who said that this was unprecedented.

Mr. Mitchison: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that over fifty of the Amendments are privileged on financial grounds?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that there may be Amendments which raise questions of Privilege where the financial effect is marginal. That is what I was saying, and I say it in all sincerity. I was not saying that all the Amendments were drafting, but only that the majority of them were of a drafting or consequential character.
Various hon. Members said that this was unprecedented, that it was a misuse of the procedure of the House and the kind of thing to which the House ought to give special attention next Monday. I can only say, before it goes to a Division, that I think the House should know that the 1947 Town and Country Planning Bill came back from another place with what Lord Silkin, who was in


charge of the Bill, described as 221 Amendments of a purely drafting character. In addition, there were another 89 Amendments which were of more than a drafting character, most of which Lord Silkin invited this House to agree to. That was a total of 310 Amendments as against 217.
We are inviting the House to proceed with the consideration of 217 Amendments on a Thursday afternoon with the Rule suspended—as some hon. Members may not appreciate—whereas the Labour Government invited the House to consider and agree with the great majority of 310 Lords Amendments on a Friday. It appears to me that what the Opposition are desiring to do is to divide in belated protest twelve years later against what they call the abuse of the procedures of this House committed by their own Government.

Mr. S. Silverman: I appreciate the force of what the Minister says. I would not defend what was done in 1947, because I do not think it is the right way to do these things. I have said that this afternoon, and I would have said it equally well in 1947. Is not the right hon. Gentleman drawing the wrong conclusion—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I hope the hon. Member is not making a second speech.

Mr. Silverman: No, Sir, I am not. I hope the Minister will look at this matter in the light of the litigation which has resulted from imperfect and doubtful drafting and will regard that as an example to be avoided.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. S. P. Viant: Before the vote is taken, I should like to express my opinion. I have been a Member of this House for a large number of years and on numerous occasions have seen legislation of a similar character to this rushed through. I hope that we shall waive the party line this afternoon and appreciate that if we do the same thing now we might be making errors.
I sat through the Committee proceedings on the Bill, and I recognised that the Bill is involved and complicated to a

very high degree. I appreciate also the desire of the Government to get it through; but let us consider for a moment whether we are doing justice by pushing the Bill through without an opportunity of weighing up the pros and cons of the Amendments from the other place.
The Patronage Secretary is present. I appreciate his desire to push the Bill through this House, but I suggest to him that adequate time and attention have not been given to the Lords' Amendments. I doubt whether the Minister himself is wholly cognisant of what they might mean.

Mr. Willis: Particularly the Scottish provisions.

Mr. Viant: I know. The Patronage Secretary has probably said to the Minister, "We must get this Bill through. We have no further time to spare." I entreat hon. Members to reconsider the position and whether it is worth while pushing this Bill through in such great haste so that in a short time cases will arise in the courts because the legislation has not been thoroughly digested and understood in this House. Ill consequences are likely to arise. I appeal to the Ministers and to the Patronage Secretary here and now to decide that they would be prepared to give more time to consideration of these Amendments in order that the whole thing may be completely tidied up.

Mr. William Hamilton: As representative of a Scottish constituency, I am taking a rather belated interest in the Bill. I have made attempts on previous occasions to understand Town and Country Planning Bills. When we had separate Scottish legislation it was a little easier to understand them than it is now. The Minister can talk about the 1947 Act till he is blue in the face; we then had our separate Scottish Bill, which was easier to understand than is the present Bill.
It is interesting to note that we have not yet had from the Solicitor-General for Scotland answers to the points raised by Scottish Members. The Minister ought not to come here and tell us that all or most of the Amendments are drafting or consequential. It is we who shall decide that and not the right hon. Gentleman. It is a well-known trick of


Ministers to say that from the Government Dispatch Box and so bluff the House into accepting Amendments without discussion. I shall not be surprised if the Minister says that Amendments are consequential, but I shall ask him what makes him come to that conclusion.
For instance, there is a Lords' Amendment, in page 10, line 22. at the end, to insert:
(4A) An application for a certificate made by virtue of subsection (1) or subsection (3) of this section shall specify the matters referred to in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the said Section five, and shall be accompanied by a statement specifying"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot deal with the Amendments now.

Mr. Hamilton: I am trying to make a point against the Minister's statement that many of these Amendments are consequential and I was giving this Amendment as an illustration. I do not know whether this one was included with the consequential Amendments, but I do not think it is either a consequential or a drafting Amendment. I shall ask a series of questions about it. I want to understand fully where these sections, subsections and paragraphs are and where I can find them. I want to go away from this House at the end of the debate fully aware of what the provisions of the Bill mean. The right hon. Gentleman will have to give a series of full explanations of what is happening.
The mere fact that we have fifty-seven pages of Amendments from the antiquated place along the corridor is sufficient to arouse my suspicions of the value of the Amendments to the people of my division. I have had representations from the Fife County Council about this. The Minister said that there were only marginal financial consequences affecting local authorities. Who is he to decide that? He does not know the financial difficulties of some of our local authorities. What is marginal in his view may not be marginal in the view of local authorities.
Even if it is so, and assuming that we accepted the Government's view of

most of the Amendments as either drafting or consequential, and we therefore pass them without discussion, remember that we have fifty-seven pages of them. If we take an average of one division per page, which is not unreasonable for an Opposition as reasonable as ourselves, and an average of ten minutes per division, we shall spend 570 minutes, in other words 9½ hours, trailing through the Division Lobbies. Yesterday we spent six and a half hours discussing nuclear tests and the whole gamut of foreign affairs. Today, if the Opposition are reasonable and co-operate with the Government, we shall nevertheless spend 50 per cent. more time trailing through the Division Lobbies than we spent yesterday discussing foreign affairs. That is the ridiculous situation to which we are reduced by the Government's attitude on the Bill.

I am not going to be satisfied with it. As an Englishman representing a Scottish constituency I have found Scots law quite incomprehensible. I want very full explanations from the Minister, and from Scottish Ministers in particular, of exactly what the provisions of the Bill mean and what alterations the Lords have made in the Bill. I have another question, which I hope the Lord Advocate will answer. We have not had the Amendments very long. What consultations were there with the local authorities in Scotland before these Amendments were brought to this House? This question has already been asked by one of my hon. Friends, and we have not had an answer. It is a relevant question, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to reply.

I put this further question to the Minister. Will he give an assurance that it is not his intention to get the Bill through before this day's sitting ends? If he does not give that assurance, he will go without his breakfast tomorrow morning.

Question put, That the Lords Amendments be now considered:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 123.

Division No. 166.]
AYES
[5.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Balniel, Lord


Alport, C. J. M.
Arbuthnot, John
Barber, Anthony


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Armstrong, C. W.
Barlow, Sir John


Amory, Ht. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Atkins, H. E.
Batsford, Brian




Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Neave, Airey


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hare Rt. Hon. J. H.
Nugent, Richard


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, R. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Partridge, E.


Body, R. F.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Peel, W. J.


Bonham Carter, Mark
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Braine, B. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hobson, john (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Pott, H. P.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Holland-Martin, C. J-
Powell, J. Enoch


Carr, Robert
Hope, Lord John
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Rawlinson, Peter


Channon, H. P. G.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cole, Norman
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Robertson, Sir David


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackcool, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roper, Sir Harold


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Russell, R. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, R. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Shepherd, William


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cunningham, Knox
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, J. A.
Speir, R. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kirk, P. M.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Davidson, viscountess
Lagden, G. W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lambton, Viscount
Studholme, Sir Henry


de Ferranti, Basil
Leavey, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Temple, John M.


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Duncan, Sir James
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Eden, J- B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, s.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Errington, Sir Eric
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Finlay, Graeme
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McMaster, Stanley
Webbe, Sir H.


Freeth, Denzil
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Webster, David


Gammans, Lady
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Madden, Martin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhart, Philip
Marshall, Douglas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, H. R.
Mathew, R.
Woollam, John Victor


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Grant, Rt. Hon. w. (Woodside)
Mawby, R. L.



Green, A.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gresham Cooke, R.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Bryan.


Grimond, J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.





NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Balfour, A.
Foot, D. M.
Kenyon, C.


Benson, Sir George
Forman, J. C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Beswick, Frank
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
King, Dr. H. M.


Blyton, W. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lawson, G. M.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Lewis, Arthur


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bowles, F. G.
Greenwood, Anthony
Lipton, Marcus


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacColl, J. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hamilton, W. W.
MacDermot, Niall


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hannan, W.
McLeavy, Frank


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hastings, S.
MacPherson, Malcilm (Stirling)


Cliffe, Michael
Hayman, F. H.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Clunie, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Mellish, R. J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holman, P.
Mendelson, J. J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hoy, J. H.
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen. N.)
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hunter, A. E.
Moody, A. S.


Dodds N. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Donnelly, D. L.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Moyle, A.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Oliver, G. H.







Oram, A. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Viant, S. P.


Owen, W. J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Warbey, W. N.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Skeffington, A. M.
Weitzman, D.


Panneil, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Paton, John
Snow, J. W.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pearson, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Peart, T. F.
Sparks, J. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Spriggs, Leslie
Willey, Frederick


Popplewell, E.
Steele, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Redhead, E. C.
Stonehouse, John
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Reeves, J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)



Ross, William
Thornton, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tomney, F.
Mr. G. H. R. Rogers and Mr. Deer.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — Title

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That the consideration of the Lords Amendments in the Title, lines 8, 10 and 14, be postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Amendments.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman would like these Amendments to be postponed until the end. I said in the remarks which I made a little while ago, when we were discussing the last question before the House, that I could not remember any occasion in which the House was asked to take into consideration Amendments from another place that began with a necessary Amendment of the title. I do not say that it is not within their rights—of course it is. It seems to me, however, to be a sufficiently striking new feature to make it worth while that the Minister should explain to us how it has come about that when this matter was being considered in another place the whole scope of the Bill had to be altered in order to make Amendments to it.
A great deal of time would be saved if the House negatived the Motion and if we decided now whether we wished to alter the Title of the Bill or not, because if we decide that we do not want to widen the scope of the Bill at all or in the way advocated in the proposed Amendments to the Title, a great deal of time would be saved. If we accept the Minister's proposal we have to debate before they are really in order Amendments which could be incorporated into the Bill only if subsequently the Title of the Bill is altered. We may waste all that time. We may debate these Amendments at length. We may ultimately defeat them and then it will be unnecessary to alter the Title of the Bill.
We may save a great deal of time if the right hon. Gentleman will at this stage tell us which subsequent Amendments are covered by these Amendments to the Title and defend those Amendments. Then, if he persuades the House that it is right in principle, the House will make no difficulty whatever about altering the Title in order to give effect to the Amendments, whereas if he does not persuade the House that the Amendments he wishes to make which would necessitate alteration in the Title are good Amendments, he would not need to move the Amendments to the Title at all.

ROYAL ASSENT

5.43 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Criminal Justice Administration (Amendment) Act, 1959.
2. Solicitors (Amendment) Act, 1959.
3. Post Office Works Act, 1959.
4. Fire Services Act, 1959.
5. Metropolitan Magistrates' Courts Act, 1959.
6. Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959.
7. National Insurance Act, 1959.
8. Cotton Industry Act, 1959.
9. Chevening Estate Act, 1959.
10. Pensions (Increase) Act, 1959.
11. Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959.
12. National Assistance Act, 1959.
13. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1959.
14. Royal Wanstead School Act. 1959.
15. Birmingham Corporation Act. 1959.


16. Round Oak Steel Works (Level Crossings) Act, 1959.
17. Railway Passengers Assurance Act, 1959.
18. North Devon Water Act, 1959.
19. Thames Conservancy Act, 1959.
20. Middlesex County Council Act, 1959.
21. Port of London Act, 1959.
22. Bradford Corporation Act, 1959.
23. Finsbury Square Act, 1959.
24. London County Council (Money) Act, 1959.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Lords Amendments again considered.

Question again proposed, That the consideration of the Lords Amendments in the Title, lines 8, 10 and 14, be postponed till after the consideration of the subsequent Amendments.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. S. Silverman: I was explaining to the House that it seemed to me that a good deal of time might be saved by not accepting the proposals which the Minister has made, that consideration of these Amendments be postponed, because we might decide that we might not wish to enlarge the scope of the Bill in this way.
I need not detain the House much longer on that, but I would like for a moment to give an illustration of what I mean. Of the three Amendments to the Title which are proposed, the first, relating to the word "and", is, no doubt, in the strictest sense of the word, purely drafting, but the other two are not. They are substantial and independent of one another.
To illustrate my argument, I pick out only one of them, although the point would equally apply to both. I pick out the second one, in line 10, after "Acts". insert
and as to enforcement notices thereunder".
Unless at some time or other we amend the Title of the Bill to introduce those words, we shall not be entitled—because the scope of the Bill as originally drawn did not enable us to do it—to deal with enforcement notices.
It may be asked why that is so serious a matter. It is a serious matter for

this reason, among others. I need mention only one reason for the purposes of my present argument. In this House, we have always regarded it as, although within our power, highly undesirable to have retroactive alterations in the criminal law. That is what the other place wishes us to do and the Minister is asking us at this moment to postpone consideration of it.
6.0 p.m.
How does it work? A local authority serves an enforcement notice on a man against whom it alleges that he is using his land in a way not authorised by the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The man takes the enforcement notice to his solicitor, and his solicitor says, "You can ignore this. There have been recent decisions which provide that although you may not have applied for, and may never have obtained, actual permission to use the land in the way that is now complained of, nevertheless there was a general order which permitted you to do it for twenty-eight days in any one year. The enforcement notice that has been served upon you alleges that the use is unauthorised, and that you never had permission for it, but the courts have decided that an enforcement notice in that form is invalid because it is untrue. It alleges that there was no permission when in fact there was permission." So the man goes away with that advice and ignores the enforcement notice. If he is prosecuted by the local authority on the basis of existing law he must be acquitted, and he will be. The advice given to him about the existing law is correct advice.
But what is proposed by the Amendment? It is proposed to alter that, so that such an enforcement notice, although invalid under the present law, will be valid after we pass this Measure. That might be all right; it is a matter for consideration on principle, but we are invited to make that retrospective.

Mr. Mitchison: No we are not.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): We are now deciding whether or not to postpone the Amendments to the Title. The Amendments which will cause the amendment, if necessary, will come later.

Mr. Silverman: I appreciate that, and I have no desire to abuse the process of


the House or to duplicate discussion of the matter. I was only illustrating my argument that there are some Amendments of such a character that the House might prefer to deal with them here and now rather than in their proper place on the Notice Paper and then alter the Title at a later stage.
It would be much better if the Minister would tell us now which Amendments require these Amendments of the Title. Let him explain those to us and tell us, in general outline, why they are thought desirable. When we have heard his explanation we may decide to postpone it, or to alter the Title now. It might

5
"(6A) In determining, for the purposes of the issue of a certificate under this section, whether planning permission for any particular class of development might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land, the local planning authority shall not treat development of that class as development for which planning permission would have been refused by reason only that it would have involved development of the land in question (or of that land together with other land) otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan relating thereto."


10

Read a Second time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move—

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. Has the Lords Amendment been moved?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not necessary.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, to leave out "not".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it will be convenient to consider, together with this Amendment, the following three Amendments, in line 7, leave out "by reason only that" and insert "if"; in line 10, at end add:
Provided that if, by reason of special circumstances which have arisen since those provisions applied to the land in question, the local planning authority consider that permission for development of the land in question (or of that land together with other land) otherwise than in accordance with those provisions might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted, the local authority may certify accordingly, setting out the special circumstances in their certificate.
and in line 10, at end add:
Provided that if, by reason of special circumstances, the local planning authority consider that permission for development of the land in question (or of that land together

be that we would save a considerable amount of time. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the spirit in which I make this proposal to him. It is wrong to alter our criminal law retroactively, and I do not think that in this case we should be invited to do that first and then to consider whether to amend the Title later.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5.—(CERTIFICATION OF APPRO PRIATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 32, at end insert:

with other land) otherwise than in accordance with those provisions might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted, the local authority may certify accordingly, setting out the special circumstances in their certificate.

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is a simple point. As it stands, the Lords Amendment deals with the question of certificates being issued in relation to development which might reasonably be expected. The authority to issue those certificates is the planning authority, and a Clause in the Bill that we are now considering sets out the machinery for that purpose. The Government, by way of the Lords Amendment, seek to introduce a provision that I can summarise fairly in these words, A planning authority may, if it chooses, disregard the development plan and any provisions in it when issuing its certificate. Hon. Members will be able to study the Clause for themselves, but I can see no distinction between that form of words and the rather longer form in the Lords Amendment.
We take the view that that is wrong. For this purpose we go back to the 1947 Act, in order to consider what relation the development plan has to planning permission. In Section 14 of that Act a local planning authority, when deciding


whether to give planning permission, is to
have regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as material thereto, and to any other material consideration.
Later in the same Section there is a provision which enables development orders to be issued, and paragraph 8 of the General Development Order, 1950, provides, in relation to development not in accord with the development plan, as follows:
A local planning authority may in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by directions given by the Minister under this order grant permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of the development plan.
Accordingly, in relation to any application for planning permission, the effect of those two provisions together is that the local planning authority can give a planning permission contrary to the development plan only if and in so far as it is allowed to do so by the Minister. There is certainly no provision about planning permissions in general, that it may do the opposite of what the development plan provides if it so thinks fit. On the contrary, the development plan is clearly indicated as that which is to guide it except in circumstances which call for a Ministerial direction.
With regard to the certificates, if the Lords Amendment is to be accepted as it stands, the position will be that the local planning authority in considering this question will be able to disregard the development plan to an extent which it could never do when considering the similar question which arises in connection with an application for planning permission. Accordingly, the question—if we may take a concrete instance—of whether where land is indicated as an open space some other development might reasonably have been expected to be permitted if the land had not been compulsorily acquired would answer itself when an application was made for planning permission. The answer would generally be, "You, the applicant, must keep to the development plan unless there are Ministerial directions entitling you to do otherwise."
However, when exactly the same question comes up in connection with the issuing of a certificate under the Bill, a certificate which it is hoped will have the effect of giving more compensation

to the person whose land is being compulsorily acquired, then that person is put in a better position than the applicant could possibly be under the 1947 Act. A right is given him which, as I see it, amounts to a complete disregard of the development plan, for in the language of the Lords Amendment the local planning authority is not to treat development of any particular class as development for which planning permission would have been refused by reason only that it would have involved a breach of the provisions of the development plan. There is no difference in it. The authority might just as well have been told, "You can and should disregard the development plan." It comes to exactly the same thing as far as I can see.
I suggest that we are fully entitled to make the criticism that I have already made and that the right way to look at this is to treat the development plan as that which must be followed in the absence of special circumstances. The suggestion in our Amendments is, accordingly, that unless there are special circumstances the development plan should be followed, and if there are special circumstances a certificate may be granted, but in that case the special circumstances should be set out in it in case any question arises on appeal, any question of law or the like.
The only difference between the last two in this group of Amendments is this. The first one was intended to stipulate that the special circumstances must be something which had arisen after the development plan applied to the land in question. On reconsideration, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and I thought that that might be too narrow. Therefore, the second of those two Amendments, which I definitely prefer, refers to special circumstances, but does not stipulate that they must be special circumstances which have arisen since the development plan applied to the land in question.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
I wish to ask a question for elucidation. My difficulty is as follows. Suppose the development plan provides that an area is not to be built on. If the local authority, the acquiring authority


or the planning authority leaves it at that, presumably the owner of the land is entitled to compensation under the 1954 Act unamended, because it is compensation for refusal of planning permission, which still, I think I am right in saying, would come within the 1954 Act. That would mean that he would be entitled to the limited values of his land, virtually the existing use value plus the claim under 1954 Act.
If that is so, I want know why he should be entitled to greater compensation if the local authority is acquiring the land in order to develop it for public purposes. In other words, if the local authority leaves the land and says, "We are not interested in the land. All we are interested in is that you can do nothing with it under the development plan", the owner will get compensation for refusal of planning permission.
If, on the other hand, the local authority is to develop it for public use, then, as I understand the position under the Lords Amendments, the compensation would be based upon what we, rather erroneously, talk about as market value; in other words, it would be market value in the sense that it would be possible to roam over the whole field of possible uses to which the land could have been put in this extraordinarily hypothetical exercise of producing the certificate, and it would be possible to arrive at a value which might be very much more than would have been the value that the owner would have got if the acquiring authority had not been going to use the land.
I know that the Minister hates the idea of public authorities ever doing anything for the public, but I do not quite understand why he is carrying his hatred so far as to inflict this additional financial fine upon them for having the arrogance and impertinence to want to use land for the public good instead of leaving it to lay waste. I should be grateful it (he Minister would elucidate this point.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I regard the Lords Amendments as being open to the strongest objection. I think that what we have witnessed in the proceedings on the Bill at this stage and earlier is one of the most predatory and

selfish exercises that one could have seen for a very long time. The principle has, of course, been accepted that what is described as the open market fair value of land is to be paid upon compulsory acquisition, but the wretched spectacle to which we have been treated since has been the repeated endeavour to ensure that every crumb of compensation shall be picked up, that no "lolly" shall be allowed to get by. The Lords Amendment manifests in noticeable degree what I regard as a wretched characteristic of the treatment of this whole problem at the various stages at which we have been engaged in it.
What was the position before the Lords Amendment attracted our attention? The position was that in a case where on the current development plan land was white and there was no proposed specified development or designation for compulsory purchase, when any owner of an interest sought a certificate for alternative development he was to be entitled to go to the certifying authority and have an adjudication upon the question of what planning permission might reasonably have been expected. As I understand it, for all practical purposes the issue arises only in the case of a green belt, open space or white land. It does not arise in the case of development for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, or in the case of areas of comprehensive development. There are very few other instances of designation or zoning on the development plan where the trouble will arise.
As the matter left Standing Committee and consideration in this House on Report, the authority which had the duty to certify the appropriate alternative development for which permission might reasonably have been expected was given carte blanche to consider all the relevant factors. Of course, in considering what kind of development would have been likely to get permission, it was a relevant factor that the land was shown on the development plan as white.
The effect of that was as follows. The fact that the land was shown as white on the plan did not exclude the possibility that development of the land might be permitted. Nobody ever suggested that that would occur. Although land is marked white on a current development plan, it has always been open to anybody


to apply for planning permission in respect of that land and, on failure to get planning permission, to go to the Minister on appeal. It has been open to anybody—and it does not even have to be the owner of the land concerned—to go to the planning authority and ask for permission to develop the land which is marked and zoned on the development plan as an open space or green belt.
We all knew that when the Bill left this House. We all knew that it would be a relevant circumstance that the current development plan determined and arrived at having regard to all the circumstances in the general public interest, had expressed the conclusion that the land was best left as an open space and undeveloped. We knew that it was always open to anybody desiring to develop the land to make an application for permission to develop and, if that application were turned down, to go on to the Minister and appeal.
If the Amendment had not been proposed by the Lords and the Bill had been allowed to take effect as was originally intended, the result would have been that in 99 cases out of 100 the certifying authority would have said that since the land was marked as white on the development plan it was, therefore, reasonable to assume that planning permission would not have been given for any development of any kind, but it would have been open to that authority to have regard to special circumstances. The current development plan might have started to become out of date. There might have been windfalls of other open spaces or other green belt land which would take the place of land originally zoned in the development plan as open land or green belt land. There might have been changes of circumstance. Those are just the kind of special circumstances to which my hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have drawn attention.
What the Lords Amendment proposes is to throw the whole thing wide open, because when the owner of the land now seeks to get his certificate of alternative development and the certifying authority says that the land is marked white on the plan and the reasonable conclusion is therefore that the applicant would not get planning permission if he asked for it, the applicant can reply, as the Minister knows, that the fact that the land is white

is precisely the fact which the Act of Parliament invites and directs the authority to ignore.
That is where this proposal is entirely wrong. Of course, it may be defended in a plausible fashion. There is nothing easier than to be plausible when one is being predatory, and that is what is happening throughout the Bill in one provision after another. The practical consequence of the Lords Amendment will be that again and again it will be open to the owner of the interest in the land to say to the local authority that if that authority takes the point that because the land is open land there would not have been planning permission, that is the circumstance and the factor which Parliament has instructed the authority to ignore. Albeit that the land is marked as a green belt, it might be admirably suited for residential development, apart from the fact of its zoning on the plan. The applicant will be able to fight and maintain strongly for the full residential value of the land.
Some local authorities will be on their toes and prepared to defend what is the correct position which they can take up, but others will not be so strong, and in every instance there will be the opportunity for the owner of the land to argue and to try to persuade the local authority that the fact that the land is white on the plan is the circumstance which Parliament has instructed the certifying authority to ignore.
I believe that that is entirely wrong, and because the Lords Amendment is open to the gravest objection and because my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment does a great deal to remove what is objectionable, I support his Amendment.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friends have told the House what our Amendments set out to achieve. There is no doubt that the Amendments give effect to what most Members of the Committee wanted at the time the changes were made in Committee. I do not propose to cover that ground, but I stress that the Lords Amendment will make the position for Scotland even worse.
When in Committee we discussed the certifying procedure, we had long discussions about the fact that applications for certificates could be made by persons other than those holding the dominium utile. I do not want to explain what


dominium utile is. The Solicitor-General for Scotland knows what it means. Clause 7 (3) says that applications for certificates
may be made by any person entitled to any feu duty or ground annual or other annual or recurring payment or incumbrance out of the land (not being stipend or standard charge in lieu of stipend) …
That means that many people are entitled to go to the local authority and apply for a certificate.
The Lords Amendment opens the door to arguments along the lines suggested by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). That seems to place the local authorities in Scotland in an exceedingly difficult position. If he is listening, I ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to explain how this will operate in Scotland, what he considers will be the effect in Scotland of the Lords Amendment as it stands and then of the Lords Amendment as amended by this Amendment. Whatever the circumstances in England, I understand that in Scotland these Amendments to the Lords Amendments would be desirable. We ought to hear from the Solicitor-General whether that is so and if it is why we should accept the Lords Amendment unamended.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On going through the various Lords Amendments I have discovered that I might wish to move a manuscript Amendment. Could you tell me the rule in relation to manuscript Amendments when we are considering Lords Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: The normal practice is not to accept a manuscript Amendment of which the House has not had notice.

Mr. H. Brooke: First I should like to reply to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), who was raising a much larger issue, but he will recollect that repeatedly in Committee I explained on behalf of the Government that the Government saw a distinction between the case of the man who is refused planning permission to retain the ownership of his land and the case of the man whose land, as here, is compulsorily taken from him. It is not necessary that the basis of compensation should be the same in each case.
The purpose of the Lords Amendment which this Amendment proposes to amend is simply to remove a doubt as to what is to be taken into account in connection with the issue of certificates. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), who suggested that this Lords Amendment opened quite new fields, I would refer to paragraph 19 of the White Paper explaining the original Bill. If he looks at that White Paper, the hon. Gentleman will see that this Lords Amendment in no way goes beyond what was stated there as to the intention of the Bill and what we believe to be the full meaning of the Bill. Nevertheless, it has been thought fit by another place to insert the Amendment to remove any possible doubts there might be, because we do not want cases to come into court unnecessarily

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Where on earth was the doubt? Everyone knows that where land was not zoned for residential or industrial development but was left as open land, one could apply for permission to develop it. Where was the doubt?

Mr. Brooke: Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will allow me to complete my speech, because it is not only white land that this applies to. It is common ground that Section 14 of the 1947 Act requires a local planning authority when dealing with an application for planning permission to
have regard to the provisions of a development plan, so far as material thereto, and to any other material considerations.
It was because of those words in the 1947 Act that it was felt some doubt arose and it might be possible that the local planning authority might feel bound to say in its certificate that no development would be permitted except in accordance with the marking of the plan for the land in question, but that would create a nonsense. Indeed, the first of the Amendments in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would create a nonsense, which he seeks to mitigate by the further Amendments. We have not only to consider the case of white land. In the case of white land, the authority has obviously to consider whether any development at all would be appropriate, but we must also address ourselves to the case where on a development plan a


piece of land is shown in a built-up area surrounded by residential development, but allocated for a school, an open space, or something like that.
It is no good looking at the development plan for guidance there, because what we are trying to do is to discover for what purpose planning permission might be given for the development of this land if it were not to be acquired by a public authority; and the development plan shows the allocation only on the assumption that the authority is acquiring it. So the development plan does not help at all, and that is why one must not tie the local planning authority to the development plan as the Opposition Amendment would seek to do. It must be fully provided that the planning authority is not precluded in the normal case from issuing a certificate for development which is out of accord with the plan. The Lords Amendment makes clear that the authority is free to exercise a reasonable discretion. If I may illustrate what I mean by a reasonable discretion, when I use those words I mean the kind of discretion it would exercise in submitting a proposal for the alteration of the development plan under Section 6 of the 1947 Act.
I hope the purpose of all of us is the same in this; that is to say, to try to set up machinery which will enable a ruling to be given as to the development that might have been permitted to take place if the land were not being purchased compulsorily.
The Government say that there is a variety of cases where we cannot get an answer to that simply by looking at the development plan and there ought not to be words in the Bill which might even import a presumption that in a case like that a development plan would give the answer and that a local authority would be doing something unusual if it departed from the development plan. If it is an area surrounded by houses zoned in that development plan, the local authority will not be doing anything unusual if it gives a certificate for the land where planning permission might be reasonably given for development of the land for something other than a school. Of course, a certificate is not a planning permission, but an indication of the types of use for which planning permission might be given.
What I put to the House is that this group of Opposition Amendments would tie the local planning authority down too tightly, whereas if we agree to the Lords Amendment unamended we shall be approving the Clause with no element of doubt remaining.

Mr. Mitchison: By leave of the House I should like to say that I have never heard a more illogical defence of what seems to me to be an indefensible proposition. I am not interested in the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper. That was thrown overboard long ago. The Amendments go quite wide of the White Paper in many respects. What I am interested in is the question which we are now considering, namely, what is a local planning authority to consider when granting a certificate of development which might reasonably have been expected on the land if the land had not been compulsorily acquired? That is permitted development. Accordingly. it is development for which a hypothetical person would have had to apply for planning permission. The person applying for planning permission would have seen the local planning authority, and the local planning authority—or the Minister if the application were made to him—would have had to consider the development plan and would have been entitled to consider anything else only if there was a Ministerial direction to that effect. When considering what might reasonably have been expected, that is what must be borne in mind.
It is wholly inconsistent to have one standard for planning permission and another for the circumstances that we are considering in relation to certificates. There must be the same attitude to the development plan. I do not know what the Minister meant by taking one out of four connected Amendments and saying that that would make nonsense. That is often the case with four connected Amendments, but we all know perfectly well what we are doing.
The object of the Amendments is to put a person applying for a certificate in the same position as a person who might apply for hypothetical planning permission to which the whole of the certificate process relates. It is wholly inconsistent to say that there must be a different attitude to one as compared with the other. I cannot understand


why the right hon. Gentleman tries to defend this attitude towards development plans.
If we are to disregard development plans, then we shall disregard something which, as we all know, has affected very materially the value of land in the past. Land which is marked and scheduled in the development plan for one purpose may have, and usually has, a different value from similar land scheduled or marked for another purpose. It is on the basis of the development plan that land has changed hands and that a market price has been paid for it that we come to the question of compulsory purchase. If we were to ask an ordinary person the market value of land, the first question which he would ask in relation to planning matters would be, "What does the development plan say about it?" When considering alternative development, surely the right thing to do is first look at the development plan. Only special circumstances can possibly entitle one to go beyond it.
I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, not only because they seem to be wrong, but because they seem to be unrelated to previous transactions which would have proceeded with due regard to the development plan. I am driven to the conclusion that in this respect and in other respects the Bill has been persistently tightened up—always in one direction during its progress through this House and in the Lords. It has been tightened up to give the individual owner of land who is selling to a local authority under compulsory sale a higher price than he would otherwise have obtained.
6.45 p.m.
We are as concerned as anybody to do the right thing in the Bill and to give what the Explanatory Memorandum calls
a market value basis for compensation".
We had our differences about that on Second Reading, but ever since we have been in Committee that is what we have been trying to do. But it is not a market value, and nothing like it, if, whenever one comes to a doubtful question—I do not believe that this is even a doubtful question—one always comes down on the same side and if when the Bill goes from the Commons to the Lords the local

authority is time after time mulcted at the expense of the man whose land is being sold.
One wants to be fair, but I believe that the attitude that appears from the Lords Amendment, and which the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, is not fair as between two people, whoever they are, and that a comparison of the position in relation to planning permissions shows that quite clearly. I hope that we shall persist in our Amendment.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The Lords Amendment is thoroughly bad. I hope that we shall vote against it and that we shall support the Amendment moved from this side of the House.
I do not think that the Minister's explanation is at all satisfactory. He-referred to paragraph 19 of the White Paper, I think, and said that the principle embodied in it has already been accepted. However, paragraph 19 deals with a limited case. It reads:
For instance, if a site is 'defined' in the plan for some public development (e.g., for a school), this does not, or may not, tell us what sort of private development would have been allowed if the land had not been required for public development".
That is what we want to know in order to arrive at the value in the open market.
The Minister dealt with a case where the land has already been designated for public acquisition, but the Amendment goes far beyond that. The Amendment wipes out the development plan entirely. What it says, in substance, is that a local authority can completely ignore the plan, at any rate from the point of view of the landlord's interest, and the planning development in that respect would count for nothing. It is not true that planning development is wiped out entirely because the landlord cannot always rely upon the development plan. Suppose that the planning authority is thinking in terms of a planning restriction which may restrict the purposes for which the land may be used and therefore diminish its value. The local authority cannot rely upon that. It is a question of, "Heads I win, tails you lose" for the landlord. That is the principle embodied in almost every Amendment placed before the House by the Minister.
There is no justification for the Amendment. It proposes a wide extension of the principle. It allows for favouritism between one landowner and another. The planning authority can say what it likes if a landowner applies for compensation.
As I have said, this is a thoroughly bad Amendment. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said that a man buys a piece of land on the basis of its present value as defined in the development plan. Why should a landowner receive compensation in excess of what he has paid for the land? It is simply a free bonus for the landowner which may be justified on political grounds but it is certainly not justified upon any principle of natural justice or on the real value of the land. In addition, it is an imposition upon the ratepayers.
I know that during the municipal elections the Tories shouted about how the poor ratepayer is being mulcted. The Bill, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, states that £8 million a year is being taken out of the pockets of the ratepayers and put into the pockts of the landlords, and every one of these Lords Amendments means a bit more for the landlords. We are entitled to be told how far this £8 million is to be extended, and how much it will cost the ratepayers each year in subsidising these landlords. Perhaps we may hear that from the Minister at some stage in our deliberations.

Mr. Sparks: I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in reply to the case put from this side of the House, but I thought that he was endeavouring to reply to something which was not exactly germane to the point of dipute between us. The Lords Amendment that we are seeking to amend is concerned with land already designated in a development plan. It is not concerned with land that is not so designated, because the Lords Amendment itself says that:
… the local planning authority shall not treat development of that class"—
that is to say, the class in which the owner is asking for it to be developed:
as development for which planning permission would have been refused by reason only

that it would have involved development of the land in question … otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan relating thereto.
The essential words are:
… otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan relating thereto.
That means that in considering the grant of a certificate the local authority must not reject it because the use to which it is sought to put the land happens to be a use other than that designated in the development plan. This provision does not become operative, as I understand it, in the case of comprehensive areas in the development plan, or areas primarily scheduled for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, but refers to all other areas in the development plan area.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that a piece of land surrounded by houses would not appear in the development plan as designated for any specific use. I cannot conceive of any such case arising in a built-up area. If it were white land, or away from any built-up area, I could understand it, but it is perfectly obvious that if the land is surrounded by a number of houses it must have some designated use in the plan—either residential, industrial or open space.
This Clause becomes operative only when the local authority wants to acquire that land, and the authority can only do so in order to use it for purposes that are permitted by the development plan. It cannot use it for any other purpose because, like anyone else, a local authority must get planning permission, and if it wants to use the land for purposes other than those in the plan, the planning authority will not permit that use. Therefore, in acquiring a piece of land, the local authority must have planning permission to use it for a particular purpose, and the planning permission must, in the main, be based upon the use designated in the development plan.
For instance, the use shown in the plan may be for open space, and this piece of land, surrounded by houses, in a built-up area, may be eminently suitable for the local authority to acquire for use as a play space for the children in the area, or as a little park for those living in the neighbourhood. But the Minister says.


"Oh, no. On its being acquired, the owner may make a claim for compensation based upon its industrial use"—and that industrial use would put on that land the highest site value. The open space value would be the lowest. Therefore, what the Minister is doing is to give the owner of the piece of land the highest rate of compensation—that based on an industrial use —whereas in the development plan it is planned for use as open space.
If development plans are to have any value whatever, the uses specified in them should be adhered to—local authorities have to adhere to them—and, in general, compensation should be based upon that designated use. If that principle is once departed from, we are opening the door wide to an element of abuse which will bring development plans into disrepute, because the uses that are designated in a development plan would count for nothing when the local authority wished to acquire the land for the purpose for which the development is stipulated.

The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, did not answer the case put from this side. We want to stick by the use designated in the development plan—varied, if necessary, with the passing of time. One can understand that with the passing of time it may be necessary to change the designated use. Should that prove to be the case we agree that the designated use should be changed, and the claim for compensation should be based upon the change in the circumstances, but as long as the use designated in the development plan is valid then, in the interests of good planning, that is the basis upon which compensation should be put because, in any case, the private owner himself, like the local authority, could not have used the land for any purpose other than that designated in the development plan itself.

Question put, That "not" stand part of the Lords Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 160. Noes 99.

Division No. 167.]
AYES
[6.59 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Emmet Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fell, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Finlay, Graeme
Longden, Gilbert


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Arbuthnot, John
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp;Chiswick)


Armstrong, C. W.
Freeth, Denzil
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Atkins, H. E.
Gammans, Lady
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Balniel, Lord
George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Barbar, Anthony
Godber, J. B.
McMaster, Stanley


Barlow, Sir John
Goodhart, Philip
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Batsford, Brian
Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maddan, Martin


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Green, A.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marshall, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Grimond, J.
Mathew, R.


Bishop, F. P.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Black, Sir Cyril
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Body, R. F.
Gurden, Harold
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Braine, B. R.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nugent, Richard


Carr, Robert
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. G.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Partridge, E.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Peel, W. J.


Corfield, F. V.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pitman, I. J.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pott, H. P.


Cunningham, Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Dance, J. C. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rawlinson, Peter


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, M.


Deedes, W. F.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, J. E.


de Ferranti, Basil
Kirk, P. M.
Robertson, Sir David


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lagden, G. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Doughty C. J. A.
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Duncan, Sir James
Leavey, J. A.
Sharples, R. C.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)




Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Speir, R. M.
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Summers, Sir Spencer
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Teeling, W.
Wall, Patrick



Temple, John M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Mr. Bryan and


Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Webbe, Sir H.
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Webster, David





NOES


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Benson, Sir George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ross, William


Brockway, A. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Janner, B.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Skeffington, A. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Snow, J. W.


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Arthur
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Dodds, N. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stonehouse, John


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Lipton, Marcus
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacDermot, Niall
Tomney, F.


Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)
McLeavy, Frank
Viant, S. P.


Foot, D. M.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W. N.


Forman, J. C.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Weitzman, D.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gibson, C. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, w.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Willey, Fredcrick


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Owen, W. J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Hamilton, W. W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hannan, W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)



Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Paton, John
Mr. Deer and Mr. Simmons.

It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND

MEANS, under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

SOUTH WALES TRANSPORT BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have been considering what course to adopt to meet the convenience of the House. I propose first of all to call the Motion for rejection standing in the name of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). On that Motion all the considerations which are mentioned in the subsequent Instructions and reasoned Amendments for rejection can be discussed. If the Bill does receive a Second Reading, I propose to call the proposed Instruction to the Committee in the name of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) for the purposes of a Division, should he so desire it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day three months".
It was with some reluctance that I tabled this Amendment. I waited for a long time in the hope that some hon. Member with a constituency nearer the locus of the railway would have done the job for me, but in due course correspondence I received from objectors convinced me that it was necessary for their views to be represented and the Bill opposed. I realise that the acceptance of the Amendment would mean the rejection of the Bill; but that would not prevent its promoters from coming forward with a similar Bill in a future Session when they have had the opportunity of considering more fully and adequately the very real objections which are held by many people to this Bill.
This Bill affects what is understood to be the oldest passenger-carrying railway in the whole world. While I readily concede that the age of a railway should not in itself make it qualify for survival, I do respectfully submit to the House that the very fact that it has outlived so many other interesting railways of early nineteenth century vintage would indicate

that it has served a definite need for people in the areas of Swansea and South Wales, and, indeed, visitors and holiday-makers.
The promoters of the Bill need the sanction of Parliament before they can kill the Mumbles Railway. In view of the interesting and unusual characteristics of this railway and its age and other circumstances, I do not think we should lightly give the promoters that right at present, unless we are absolutely convinced on the evidence before us that there is no feasible alternative and that every possible attempt has been made to find one.
Thousands of South Walians, and thousands of visitors to South Wales, will have vivid recollections of this railway which runs along the shore of Swansea Bay. It is a railway which has long satisfied a definite need. In the summer months, at holiday time and at weekends particularly, it conveys large numbers of passengers smoothly, efficiently and fairly quickly. It has proved itself an exceedingly safe method of transport and it has helped to relieve traffic congestion on adjoining and adjacent roads. I am advised that the two coupled coaches are capable of carrying 220 passengers and the train is capable of an average speed of 16 to 17 m.p.h. It has been estimated that at busy times four or five double-decker buses would be 3required every twenty minutes to deal with such numbers of passengers.
There is also the consideration of road safety. The railway operates on its own track whereas if its use were abandoned extra buses would have to run on the available roadway, parts of which are not very wide and which in the summer months has to cope with an excessive amount of traffic. According to my instructions, at peak hours at the weekends and during holiday time the road has already to carry 1,800 to 2,000 vehicles per hour. Even if the promoters' case were otherwise unanswerable, I doubt whether they should have power to discontinue the railway until a much wider and much more suitable roadway has been provided.
In another place, the claim was made in a debate on the Bill that the Mumbles Railway has lost money steadily for several years. Yet I am told that in proceedings before the local traffic


commissioner earlier this year, counsel appearing for the promoting company admitted that the undertaking broke even in 1957. He admitted that it might be assumed that it might make neither a profit nor a loss. Yet, in the view of many objectors, the company has not brought forward adequate separate accounts showing the financial aspect of running the Mumbles Railway as such. Many of those who are opposed to the Bill are convinced that the possibility of modernising this unique railway has not been fully or adequately investigated
The promoters are asking Parliament for powers to close down a railway which has run for one and a half centuries, which has given pleasure to generations of people and which has given admirable satisfaction to its users. One would have thought that in such circumstances the promoters would have produced elaborate financial evidence to demonstrate by reference to income and expenditure that its future running could not be regarded as an economic possibility by any reasonable person. One would have imagined that the promoters would have been able to demonstrate, by reference to the unchallengeable evidence of experts, that no scheme of modernisation could possibly enable the railway to run on a financially successful basis. The objectors say that the promoters have not done these things and I am instructed—

Mr. W. R. Williams: That is the second time that the hon. Member has used the word "instructed". Would he, for the purposes of the record, like to substitute the expression, "according to my information"?

Mr. Gower: "Instructed" is a term which we often use in the legal profession as synonymous with the phrase which the hon. Member used.
The objectors say also that the promoters do not appear to have tried to do these things. The Mumbles Railway can also be properly described as a tourist attraction. To deprive us of the railway would surely be a loss to Swansea, several of whose citizens have written to me. Its termination would also be a loss to South Wales whose people have always regarded the railway with particular affection. It would

also be a loss to those who visit South Wales.
A petition presented by a noble Lord contains the signatures of about 14,000 objectors to the Bill. I am quite satisfied that objections to the Bill would have been more formidable, even more vociferous, had the Bill been more appropriately named. It has been brought forward as a sort of wolf in sheep's clothing. The title, "The South Wales Transport Bill," arouses no emotion, and, indeed, seems designed to lull suspicion. A Bill entitled "The Mumbles Railway Closure Bill" would have aroused instantaneous interest and concern and I believe fervent opposition.
It is doubtful too whether there are commensurate advantages to compensate for the use of oil in place of electric traction. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer), I understand, intends to develop that theme. At present, the consumption of electricity at about 20 million units has been calculated as involving the consumption of 11,500 tons of coal. This in itself is no small consideration in these days. It is claimed by supporters of the Bill that the railway does not burn locally-produced coal but uses electricity supplied by the Central Electricity Generating Board, but surely it is quite adequate for my argument that the railway uses electricity supplied by a board which itself uses coal. I trust that I am not exaggerating some of the very real objections to the Bill. I hope that I have presented to the House the considerations which motivate many of the objectors and that in the circumstances the House will hesitate to support the Bill.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I beg to second the Amendment.
I support the rejection of the Bill. I do so not because I claim any close local interest in this historic railway, but because my approach to the argument is that it is against the broad national interest that a Bill of this kind should be given a Second Reading.
My principal reason for objecting to the Bill and for tabling the Motion on the Order Paper in my name and the names of my hon. Friends stating
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill against which


there is strong local opposition; which seeks to replace a railway operating on locally-produced coal and on private right-of-way with motor buses operating on imported fuel along congested highways; and for which no valid case has been made out by the Promoters of the Bill.
is that on previous occasions I have objected strongly to Measures which seek to abolish electric traction where it could be made to pay and to substitute for it oil-engined traction. This, in such circumstances, is, I repeat, broadly against the public interest.
Electric traction makes use of electricity generated in power stations which burn coal, and coal burning is still the cheapest method. Oil traction uses an imported fuel, the supply of which in days of national emergency might easily be uncertain Electric traction uses a power source which is very clean, causes no fumes or smoke and is relatively quiet, whilst oil-engined traction uses fuel which is far from clean, which gives off obnoxious fumes and can be noisy in operation.
Electric traction often makes use of a specially reserved track designed for the purpose, and thus helps to lessen the congestion on the roads. Oil-engined public traction tends to employ very cumbersome vehicles on already impossibly overburdened roads to the detriment of the comfort of the public. I suggest that in this particular case all these considerations apply.
I hope that no one tonight will use the argument that the sin, however, is not very great because it is small. I hope that no one will say that the amount of coal in electrical terms involved is very small and that the oil that would be used would also be very small in quantity. The truth is that it is precisely because the use of oil is unavoidable in so many national tasks that we should try to avoid its use where electricity made from indigenous fuels will do the job just as well and as cheaply.
I agree that the coal indirectly consumed by this railway is by itself relatively modest in amount; that is, if we look at the railway in isolation. But where will this business stop? If it were in order, and if there were time, I could give the House a list of the Private Bills to which it has agreed in recent times,

all promoted by transport companies endeavouring to switch from electric traction to oil traction. If we add together the individually small amounts, we shall find that in total terms of coal there is a great change.
Therefore, I feel that one has to reach the stage where, in relation to individual Bills, this House should cry "Stop", as the practice is against good public policy. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has already called attention to the lack of sane argument on the part of the promoters when they say that the railway is not operated on locally produced coal but on electricity supplied by the Central Electricity Generating Board. The electricity made in this country is overwhelmingly generated by engines turned by steam, and the steam is provided by boilers and furnaces fired by coal. Whether the coal burnt happens to be local coal at any given moment depends on the inter-connection of the electricity grid lines. To argue that it is not coal but electricity is not in accordance with an elightened technical understanding on the part of the promoters, to say the least.
Now I come to the point of cleanliness. Within the lifetime of the present Parliament the House has agreed to a Clean Air Act. Broadly speaking, the Act lays it down as sound public policy that fuels should not be used in their raw or crude state. This historic railway was started when railway carriages were drawn by horses in the early years of the last century, but as long ago as 1929 the then engineers and managers looked ahead and abolished direct coal burning and changed to electricity. Now we are told that they must set aside that instalment of progress and that local users of transport must put up with diesel buses which add to the pollution of the air and do not assist general atmospheric cleanliness in the slightest.
My last point concerns congestion. I am not an expert on the local roads, though I have been in the district. I am told that in summer particularly they are choked with traffic. If that be the case, why take passengers away from a track made for the special purpose of carrying passengers and vehicles and leave them to scramble for buses on an already crowded highway? This is not very sensible. I know that the promoters


spoke of only sixteen extra buses being required. That may be the case, but what about the people waiting for the buses and the general added congestion of the road by everybody? I am told that on occasion in high summer, when the railway is in use, as many as 400 passengers can alight from a single train. Transport operators everywhere know the advantages of electric traction for the transport of large numbers of persons, especially if that electric traction is operated, as in the present case, on a reserve track.
In short, my view is that no solid or valid case can be made out for the Bill. I believe that the company should be made to think again. It should be made to think about the possibility of modernising the railway, and perhaps supplying it with modern electric rolling stock. Let some expert report on this possibility. No information has been supplied by the promoters as to the views of experts on modernising the railway and continuing with electric traction.
I believe that probably the usual fault has been committed here and that the management of the railway, the traction company, not only operates the railway, which is only one small part of its business, but also operates buses over a wide area in the district. It has not been very much interested in the electric railway in part of its area and it has been largely neglected. There has probably been no proper financial provision made for the replacement of the rolling stock as it wore out. Now the company is arguing that because its equipment has been allowed to fall to pieces through its own neglect, it is too expensive to replace it finally. This House should not encourage such mismanagement.
There are other objections, of course, in addition to the ones that I have been arguing. I understand, for instance, that the local borough council is now no longer in principle opposed to the Bill, but this does not mean that there are not substantial bodies of local opinion against it. I have put forward what I believe to be substantial arguments in the general national interest and some pretty sound arguments, I judge, in the interests of local residents. For those reasons I support the rejection of the Bill.

7.27 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Richard Nugent): It may be for the convenience of the House if I speak briefly about how this Private Bill touches Government policy. The Government, as such, are neutral because this is a Private Bill. It is simply for the assistance of the House that I add a comment on the point of national policy touched upon by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower).
I say straight away that I realise that to close down a railway is a serious matter, but to close down a railway as old as this one, which is reputed to be the oldest in the world, is a particularly serious matter, and there must be good reasons before it can be done. I am entirely in favour of the process the Bill has to go through before it can be approved, and I read with interest the earnest and long debates which took place in another place before the Bill came here.
I do not think I should go into the details of the merits of the case put up by the controlling company, the South Wales Transport Company, which is part of the B.E.T. group. I understand that, broadly, their case is that the company operating the railway is now making a loss and is faced with substantial capital expenditure for modernisation. It is not for me to go into the merits of the case, but if there are doubts as to whether or no the figures are accurate, no doubt they can be probed in Committee, if the House decides to give the Bill a Second Reading, in order to see whether they are sound and stand up to argument.
I will first deal with the substantial points made by the hon. Member for Cleveland about the important matter of the use of indigenous fuel or imported fuel. He has made three arguments here. First, that indigenous fuel should be preferred; secondly, that it has the advantage, when converted into electricity, of cleanliness; and, thirdly, that there is the consideration of congestion on the roads.
On the first point, Government policy has been settled for the last two or three years that we would not interfere with changes that may be made in this way


either by private companies or public corporations. We generally think that it is best that they should use their own judgment whether or not they should change over from indigenous fuel, which could be used either directly or indirectly as electricity, to imported fuels. As long ago as 1956, I see that my predecessor in my present office, my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Works, explained broadly what Government policy was regarding the conversion by London Transport from trolleybuses to diesel buses, when we felt that on balance that was justified.
In the general picture of modernisation of British Railways, we have left the Transport Commission completely free to use its own judgment whether it should use diesel motive power or electric power, and there are examples of both with which we are all familiar. Broadly, we felt that the right principle to follow in these matters is to leave it to the commercial judgment of the particular concern, whether a public corporation or a private company, to decide which it thinks will be the most efficient fuel to use in its own circumstances. Our feeling there is that we cannot safely judge this matter in isolation, although, of course, it is of great importance that we should make full use of our indigenous resources.
Our other indigenous resources, indeed the greatest of our indigenous resources, are our own labour and skill, and, as a rule, the bill for wages and salaries is usually one of the biggest elements in any operation, whether transport or any other. Then, of course, there are the vehicles and the plant employed, and all these come into the commercial consideration of what is the right way of managing a particular transport undertaking.
The management of a concern, using their best commercial judgment, must themselves assess whether they think they will make a profit or a loss if they operate in a particular way. Our belief, and certainly my personal belief, is that the test of profitable operation will usually ensure that the resources of the country are being used in the national interest.
I have been listening to the admonition from the hon. Member for Cleveland that I must not plead that this is only

a little one, and I agree with him. It is not a very good argument, but I can give the House the reassurance that there is no danger, in this general policy which the Government have adopted, of the national economy being imperceptibly undermined by a series of Private Bills which progressively increase the import Bill and decrease the use of our indigenous resources of fuel.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Has not the hon. Gentleman admitted to the House only two minutes ago that the Government have no fuel policy at all and that the Government will not interfere with the right of private ownership to transfer from these forms of power to others? Why is he going back on that now?

Mr. Nugent: I am not. I will not repeat what I said, as hon. Members opposite may or may not agree with it, but that is our policy. The point that I wanted to make was that even if electric road traction were changed to diesel it would, in fact, increase the national oil bill by less than 1 per cent., so that the danger which hon. Members fear is a very limited one.

Mr. Palmer: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take into account the other point, that this is an imported fuel. Obviously, we have to import it, and in some conditions of emergency it might be difficult to get it through, quite apart from the question of paying for it.

Mr. Nugent: I give way to that, but I still feel that the balance of advantage is in favour of the general policy that I have outlined, and, therefore, in this instance, I would not feel that Government policy is touched or injured by the proposal made here to change over from electricity to imported fuel, that is to say, diesel fuel.
Turning to the hon. Member's second point about cleanliness, I agree that it is most important that we should do everything possible to reduce the pollution of the atmosphere by offensive fumes from diesel vehicles or any others. There is certainly an obligation on all authorities, both local and national, to see that the law is enforced in this respect, so that we do not suffer by an increase of offensive fumes, because there is far too much already.
With regard to the hon. Member's point about congestion on the roads, he made the point fairly that this proposal would involve only an additional sixteen vehicles. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry also made the point about congested roads. I accept that, and, of course, at holiday times, like many other roads leading to holiday resorts, this is a congested road. I accept that sixteen vehicles is an addition, but it is an extremely small addition. Furthermore, in terms of the service that can be given there, it would seem to me that as there is an existing bus service running, the public interest can be well protected, because I understand that one of the conditions in the Bill is that the change from the present train-tram service to road vehicles must satisfy our traffic commissioner. That is one of the conditions of the Bill.

Mr. David Jones: Is it the case that when the Bill was originally presented that provision was not in it but was inserted by another place?

Mr. Nugent: I would not like to speak about that off the cuff, but the hon. Member may well be right. The relevant point is that it is in now, and it is a very important provision. Certainly, that is what I would wish to say in the advice which I give to the House on this matter.
Finally, if I may speak in advance of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. David Jones) in reference to the Amendment in his name with regard to the compensation of employees affected by the Bill, my only point in regard to that would be that I quite sympathise with the intention that the compensation should be adequate. I would expect that during the Committee stage the Committee would ensure that it was. I see that the National Union of Railwaymen has presented a petition to be able to give evidence, and I would expect that that would ensure that the terms are reasonable and fair.
My advice to the House on the Motion which has already been moved and the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member and his hon. Friends, is that these are all points of importance. Of course they are; otherwise they would not be on the Order Paper. So far as the Government

are concerned, I would not feel that any of these matters are likely to be injurious to Government policy, and therefore my advice to the House is to accept the Bill and give it a Second Reading.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: We are obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his interesting statement. He nearly achieved two things, namely, to tell us that the Government would not like to interfere with a Private Bill and at the same time that they favoured it, and he hoped that we would accept his. advice.
The Bill had a troubled passage when it was debated in another place. If I have read the proceedings correctly, the Third Reading was agreed to only on the assumption that it would be examined in greater detail in this House. Attention has been drawn to its misleading Title, which might have prevented interested parties from exercising their right to petition against the Bill or to try to secure desirable Amendments. I must, in honour, absolve the promoters from any ulterior motives. Their intentions are widely known, and the implications of the Measure are fully appreciated. The promoters are a great improvement upon their predecessors, who in 1936 promoted a Bill which, had it been approved, would have deprived the Swansea Corporation of considerable assets without any Compensation. It was due to the vigilance of the council's legal advisers that our interests were safeguarded. I was there and had good cause to remember the occasion.
Although I gather that the South Wales Transport Company is in a reasonable frame of mind, it is incumbent upon me to give expression to the grave misgivings and disappointment felt by many thousands of people who do not relish the prospect of losing the Mumbles Railway, which has been their acceptable mode of transport for many years. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that it is easily recognised as the oldest passenger railway service in the world. It runs along a very beautiful coast. I recall the thrill of my boyhood days when riding in the open-topped carriage and listening to the tolling of the warning bell by the fireman who rode on the front of the engine.
I am not one of those who feel that antiquity is one of the greatest virtues, but before parting with this ancient railway we must be satisfied that it is being replaced by something better. The passengers with the greatest stake in it cannot be persuaded that an extended bus service will give them an equally efficient service. They contend that even if extra vehicles are available road congestion will be so intense that traffic will be brought to a standstill and chaos will prevail at holiday times. It has been suggested that the increase in bus traffic will amount to only 1 per cent.—about twenty additional buses per hour. Such a prospect fills many people with dismay in view of their experience over many years on this very congested road.
In addition to the passengers from the Mumbles, people living in suburban areas have an interest in the matter. Those living in Treboeth, Brynhyfryd, Manselton and Sketty complain that even now they frequently have to wait a very long time before being able to board a bus for the Mumbles. Similar complaints come from Llansamlet, Bonymaen and St. Thomas. A journey to the market and the bays, especially during the holiday season, is quite an adventure. It is not surprising that 14,000 people signed a petition protesting against what they regard as a worsening of the position.
The Ministry of Transport points a metaphorical forefinger at the traffic commissioner and says that the South Wales Transport Company will have to satisfy him that it will provide an adequate alternative before he will agree to the closing of the railway. This is excellent in theory, but many of my constituents are very sceptical of practical results.
Have the alternatives been fully examined? My hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) asked that Clause 12 should be amended so as to provide that the railways shall not cease operation until after the practicability of retaining and modernising them has been investigated and reported upon by an independent person with expert knowledge of both electric light railway and motor bus operation. What is the objection to such a reasonable request? The inquiry need not be of a prolonged character, and it would place everybody

in a better position to assess the merit of the company's proposals.
The figure of £300,000 has been mentioned as the sum needed to modernise the railway. If it means all that, I wonder why the South Wales Transport Company made the take-over bid. I suppose a 999-year lease might have been an inducement. It affords time and scope for development. But I hope it will not be done solely at public expense. If the railway is in such a decrepit state, why did the company acquire what it would have us believe is akin to a sack of worn out sleepers, broken chairs, bending rails and rusty bolts? There must be more in this than meets the eye.
The Swansea Council has lodged a Petition, and it will not be withdrawn until its objections are met. According to the Petition:
Any proposals relating to the future of the Railways raise issues of great importance.
Reference is made to the sea wall, the extinguishment of rights of way, the disposal of land, and so on. Paragraph 14 points out:
The Railways form an essential part of the public transport of Swansea. No provision is made in the Bill for providing alternative transport facilities and the Transport Company have not put forward any proposals regarding this matter. The Petitioners are not, therefore, satisfied that adequate alternative transport facilities will be provided and in their submission the provision of such facilities to their satisfaction should be a condition precedent to the closure of the Railways.
I will not delay the House by reading lengthy extracts from the Petition, but very important issues are raised in Clauses 16, 17 and 18 relating to extensive road improvements and highways developments which would involve the Swansea Corporation in the expenditure of a very large sum of money.
If the Bill is to become an Act of Parliament it will have to be amended in several important respects, and it is for the transport company to satisfy the House that it is prepared to meet the reasonable objections of the Swansea Corporation and satisfy my constituents that, if change is inevitable, it will be effected in the public, as well as the private, interest.
The human aspect must not be overlooked. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) will emphasise this point when he deals with his Instruction to the Committee, which


he suggests is of great importance. Men who have spent the whole of their working lives in this service must be given adequate compensation. The company prides itself upon its labour relations and condition of service. It must not fail on this occasion. The House is not likely to make the Bill an Act until it is satisfied that right and proper treatment is meted out to redundant staff.
I gather from meagre Press reports that two trains were in collision between Swansea and Mumbles yesterday. Fortunately, very few people were hurt. But the incident will invest the Bill with a greater element of urgency. The main objective is adequate and efficient transport. It remains for the company to meet the reasonable objections of the Corporation and other interested parties and to provide proper compensation for redundant staff. It should be possible to reach a satisfactory conclusion without further delay.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is not in his place. I listened to his speech with interest, but I could only assume that his interest is of an academic character. I am reluctant to believe that he thinks the matter should be given a political slant. Mumbles is a rival superior in every way to Barry. I should not like the hon. Member's intervention to get him into trouble with his constituents, who expect him to be concerned with imports and exports at Barry Docks rather than with the claims of a holiday resort far beyond the confines of his constituency.
If common sense is observed, this problem should be solved without further delay.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I wish to support the Second Reading of the Bill now. As hon. Members will know, for nineteen years I was employed as a solicitor by the Great Western Railway and for one year by the British Transport Commission before I resigned for political reasons. During that time I had many contacts with the Mumbles Railway. I know the site very well, and I have known of its history for many years. No one who takes an interest in the history of transport could fail to be interested in the Mumbles Railway for reasons which have already been

indicated. Contrary to popular belief, the Stockton and Darlington Railway was not the first passenger line in this country. The Mumbles Railway preceded it by many years. As has already been said, it has been running for 150 years. The remarkable thing is that all that time it has been under private enterprise. First there was horse traction, then steam, and finally electric traction.
Sentiment is not enough in matters of transport. The pattern of transport is changing all the time and has always done so ever since man first invented the wheel and taught the horse or the ox to pull a cart. Nowadays, the pattern changes much more quickly than it used to do. It is a fatal mistake to try to freeze a pattern of transport into the particular form which it now takes. If some wiseacre, or some gentleman in Whitehall who knows best, or some hon. Member tries to do that, he will always get into difficulties, because the only possible test of whether the public needs a certain form of transport is whether the public is prepared to pay for it.
Once one gets away from that principle, one gets into difficulties which involve the taxpayer or ratepayer, or some other transport undertaking, in unnecessarily heavy losses. That must always be the case, because choice of transport, just like choice of wife, is an extremely individual matter for each person. No amount of legislation or refusal of legislation by this honourable House will force the people of Swansea and neighbourhood to use the Mumbles Railway unless they want to do so.
We are told by the promoters of the Bill that the Mumbles Railway lost £8,000 last year and that it would cost £300,000 to repair and replace the worn-out stock and permanent way and to put it into a good condition. In its present form, it has speed restrictions of only 10 m.p.h. at certain points. We are also told that by abandoning the railway and replacing 13 electric cars by 16 diesel buses, at a cost, one would suppose, of £80,000, and by spending a further £6,000 on making parts of the railway into a road, it would be possible to provide a better alternative transport system.
That is a matter for the Committee to which, I hope, the Bill will be referred. That is where to test the accuracy of


these statements. It is not for us merely with our imaginations to judge whether those statements are true. When the Bill goes to Committee, witnesses can be produced to prove the matter one way or the other. If, on the one hand, to get a service where there are speed restrictions of 10 m.p.h. in some places it is necessary to spend £300,000, while, on the other hand, to provide an alternative service one needs to spend a total of only £86,000, prima facie it is obvious that we should allow that alternative to be considered.
I have inquired from the promoters of the Bill who have told me that about one-quarter of the railway would be suitable for inclusion in the roadway alongside of it to improve its width, while about one-half could be used for improvements to the sea front. I do not know whether that is so. It is some years since I last saw the site, but that, too, is a matter for the Committee.
The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) said that the Bill would involve the substitution of derv for electric power. That is true, but I am told that only about three-quarters of a million units of electricity are consumed in a year. I cannot believe that the Central Electricity Generating Board cannot find a use for those three-quarters of a million units. In the West Country, one of our difficulties is not merely providing additional electric lines for new users, but getting the additional power required.

Mr. Palmer: Surely the hon. Member does not deny that the Central Electricity Generating Board, or the South Wales Electricity Board, would prefer to keep its customers if it could. Has any attention been given to the possibility of modernising the railway on the basis of continued electrification?

Mr. Wilson: I suggest that the Central Electricity Generating Board might be very well pleased to sell that amount of electricity to some other customer who is waiting and willing to pay for it. Whether the electricity was taken by the Mumbles Railway or some other customer, the probability is that no less coal would be burned by the Central Electricity Generating Board.
I gather that the amount of derv which would be used would be about 24,000

gallons a year. In view of the vast numbers of vehicles on our roads which are using derv and which will use it more and more, the consumption of 24,000 gallons of derv is not a matter to which we need pay much attention.
The argument about pollution of the atmosphere is false. It is common knowledge—and it should be agreed as such—that if a diesel engine is properly maintained and kept in proper order it does not produce smoke. [HON. MEMBERS: "They never are."] It is not true that diesel engines are never properly maintained. Bus companies maintain them very well as a rule, but some lorry drivers are under the delusion that if they fiddle with the intake they can get more power. I am told that that is a delusion and that what sometimes happens is that a lorry driver fiddles with the engine of his lorry in the belief that he will get more power, thus causing smoke. It does not happen with buses, because a bus driver would never dare to touch his engine. That is maintained entirely by the engineers' department.
However, all these are matters which can be tested in the Committee. I understand that the ultimate owners of the railway are British Electric Traction, an organisation which started as a tramway company and then went over to buses. If anybody knows the comparative costs of running an electric tramway and running an electric railway, it would be this company. It seems to me prima facie that such an experienced private concern would not suggest the alternative of buses unless it was sure of its figures and that the railway was not paying. That is a very good reason for us at least to send the Bill to Committee where these matters can be tested.
We have often urged the British Transport Commission to close down uneconomic branch lines. We have agreed to London Transport abandoning trolleybuses and substituting diesel buses. It would be quite illogical for us to refuse to allow a private company to rationalise itself in the manner suggested.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) will be dealing with the case of the individuals who will be displaced under these proposals. I understand that only about ten men will be unemployed. I have no doubt that the Committee could look after these ten


men and put the appropriate Clause into the Bill when it is dealt with upstairs. The National Union of Railwaymen will be represented, so presumably the union will be able to make what suggestions it likes about the proposed Clause, and, if it is not satisfactory, get it amended.
For those reasons, I think we ought to give the Bill a Second Reading.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. David Jones: The solicitude being shown by the other side to the National Union of Railway-men is remarkable, but I never thought that I would remain in the House long enough to hear an ex-solicitor of the Great Western Railway advocate the closing down of a railway. Still, perhaps, it is not surprising. Wonders never cease.
It will be noticed that both the Motion on Second Reading, and the Instruction in my name and that of my hon. Friends, seek to deal with the specific point of protection for the people who will be dispossessed of their jobs if and when this railway closes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) approached this problem in a reasonable manner. He argued, and I think quite rightly, that there is no great virtue in antiquity. This railway lost £8,000 last year, and, if the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is to be believed, it broke even in 1957. This is one of those financial jungles which do not mean a thing, because this railway does not belong to the South Wales Transport Company. It belongs to the Swansea and Mumbles Railway Limited and was leased by the South Wales Transport Company on 17th September, 1929, for a term of 999 years, as was the Mumbles Pier. The leases on those two properties do not expire until 1st July, 2928. That was confirmed by the Swansea and District Transport Act, 1936.
It may well be that the South Wales Transport Company lost £8,000 on the Mumbles Electric Railway last year, but the House will recognise that the company runs its own buses in connection with its own tramcars over the same route and that the fare charge for travelling on the tramcars is considerably less than it is for travelling on the same company's buses.
At the end of the year the South Wales Transport Company pays £13,000 to the two companies from whom it leases these railways. My information is that some 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the shares in the two companies from which it leases the railways are held by the South Wales Transport Company, so that in fact what it does is to pay a rent of £13,000 to two companies in which it owns more than three-quarters of the stock, and the other company that operates the buses loses £8,000 as a consequence. If that is not the finance of the jungle, will somebody tell what it is?
In the document circulated by the promoters of the Bill, we are told in paragraph 8:
In connection with the Motions … concerning compensation for displaced railway employees, you may like to know that the Promoters always intended to safeguard the position of employees who are under retiring age when the railways close …
I do not know on what date that decision was reached, nor do I know the date on which the Bill was presented in another place. What I do know is that on 17th March, 1959, in reply to a query from the National Union of Railwaymen about the position of the railwaymen employed on the Mumbles Railway, the secretary of the company gave this reply:
In submitting the Bill the opportunity was taken of seeking compensation on the abandonment of the railway at some future date should this be thought desirable. It is suggested that you make representations to the company if and when a decision is taken to abandon the railway.
If it was the intention of the company to pay compensation to adequately protect the employees, surely it would not have been asking too much to have embodied some provision in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) mentioned a figure of ten men becoming unemployed. I do not know, nor does the National Union of Railway-men, how many men will be unemployed if and when the railway closes. That information has never been made public.

Mr. G. Wilson: I got the figure of ten because I had a conversation with the promoters of the Bill. I asked how many men would be affected and that was the figure I was given. I do not know on what grounds. I think it appears in the statement by the promoters.

Mr. Jones: If the figure is ten, all well and good. It has never been the practice on the Oystermouth and Mumbles Railway for the retiring age of 65 to apply. The customary practice is that men who are physically and mentally capable of doing their job are allowed to remain as long as they can do the job effectively. There are a number of employees on the railways who are already over the retiring age of 65. In almost all the grades, drivers, cleaners, conductors, shed staff and permanent way staff, there are men over 65 who, as far as I know, are doing an effective job.
Paragraph 8 of the statement rather infers that there has been an agreement with the National Union of Railwaymen. Until 10 o'clock this morning there had never been a satisfactory offer to the union by the promoters of the Bill. It is true that a suggestion was made that the age of 65 years should somewhere figure in the calculation for compensation.

Mr. G. Wilson: I can answer the question that the hon. Member asked me earlier. Paragraph 9 of the statement starts by saying:
Between thirty and forty men are employed in connection with the railways of whom some ten under 65 years of age are likely to lose their employment as a result of the closure of the railway.

Mr. Jones: But where is the figure that there are to be only ten?

Mr. Wilson: The paragraph says:
… of whom some ten under 65 years of age are likely to lose their employment …

Mr. Jones: Nobody can be certain, and there is no definite figure at the moment. I want to know whether the men over 65 who are doing their job on the electric railway are included in that calculation or whether they are additional to the ten who are not to be employed.
The proposed Clause suggests that any compensation should be limited to men under 65 years of age. That is very unfair. I challenge anyone to deny that at this moment men of over 65 years of age are driving trams between Swansea and Mumbles, and are doing their job effectively. Is it fair to argue that if and when this railway closes they should not be compensated, merely because they are 65 years of age or over? This question ought to be looked at favourably from their point of view.
There is a very good precedent. About three years ago this House had before it a Private Bill promoted by the Liverpool Overhead Electric Railway Company. That Bill ultimately became law and it authorised the Liverpool Overhead Railway to close down. The Preamble says that the Liverpool Overhead Electric Railway Company was authorised to work an overhead electric railway, the greater part of which was on the estate of the Merseyside Docks and Harbour Board. It stated that the company held and worked its undertaking under an agreement for lease from the Board
I suggest that that is on all fours with the present case. Here we have an electric railway, or a glorified tramway. The Liverpool overhead railway proposed to close down altogether and inserted in the Bill a provision that all men employed on a relevant date who had served for fifteen years or more, or who were over 55 years of age on that relevant date, should be compensated by the payment of two weeks' wages for each year of service Those with less than fifteen years' service were to be compensated with one week's pay for each year of service, with a minimum of four weeks' pay.
That is on all fours with this case, with one exception. Whereas in the Liverpool overhead railway case the railway was closing down altogether and all the people employed on the relevant day were to be compensated, in this case a substantial proportion of the staff now-employed on the railway will presumably be transferred to the sixteen extra buses which are to be run in place of the railway.
In those circumstances it is not unreasonable to argue that these people should be compensated. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is one of the British Electric Traction group, but the South Wales Transport Company is not concerned merely with running its railway. The railway is a subsidiary service. It has 340 buses operating in and around Swansea, and in some cases has a virtual monopoly of services. Some of the staff who will be transferred are young enough to be retrained, but we cannot expect a man of 60, 63, 68 or even 70 years of age, who has been driving a tramcar all his life, to be trained to drive a bus on a


busy road. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue for compensation.
I do not propose to talk about the merits or demerits of retaining the railway as against buses, but I remember some years ago that the Tir John Power Station was built at Swansea and was boilered with special boilers designed to burn anthracite duff—the residue of the anthracite coal produced in that area—which at that time was a drug on the export market. If the production of electricity at the Tir John Power Station is to be diminished by this or any other method, in the not too distant future the anthracite duff now being consumed by the station may again become a drug on the market. That point must be remembered.
I return to my opening remarks. I understand that the South Wales Transport Company, which proposes to acquire the other two companies under the terms of the Bill, already possesses the bulk of those companies' shares. Lest anybody should question why it is necessary to come to Parliament, I would point out that one of the two companies is a statutory company, which makes it necessary for Parliamentary sanction to be obtained for its acquisition. I presume that in the ordinary course of events the other company could have been acquired by a take-over bid.
This House should be satisfied, before it consents to the Second Reading, that attention will be paid to the fact that a large number of workpeople are to be displaced as a consequence of this action. We ought to repeat in this case what we did in the case of the Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill. We should make provision for reasonable compensation to be paid to those people who will be displaced as a consequence of the change.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I shall always look askance at anybody who seeks to drive people from the railways on to the roads. I noted what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said about the choice of transport. He said it was like the choice of a wife—a very individual one. I remember an Arab proverb which says that in choosing a wife or buying a

horse one should shut one's eyes and commend oneself to God. I can only say that if I venture on to the road, upon which traffic will now be increased as a result of the Bill, I shall certainly shut my eyes and commend myself to God.
I have no desire to prevent the South Wales Transport Company from closing this unprofitable undertaking. I have argued that it is unfair to attempt to force British Railways to maintain and run insufficiently used branch lines at the expense of the rest of British Railways' employees and other rail users. My argument in connection with those branch lines applies equally to the railway which we are here considering. In my opinion it would not be fair to expect bus workers or other bus users to enable this transport company to meet an annual loss, which we are told is £8,000, or to meet charges on the £300,000 necessary to re-equip the undertaking. It would not be right that the other employees of this company should be expected to subsidise the continued running or cost of maintaining that track and equipment. But in giving sanction to close such an undertaking regard must be had to the future of the employees. This has been rightly stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones).
It is the case that Parliament has for a long time, and rightly so, been interested in employees affected by its Acts. My hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools quoted a comparatively recent case, but there is a very much older case or precedent. I am referring particularly to those men who at the present time are over the age of 65. I read in the statement by the promoters that they are prepared to see included in the Bill a Clause to deal with all the employees provided that they are less than 65 years of age at the time of the closure of the undertaking.
The principle of compensation for employees, even though they are past what is agreed by some as being the normal retiring age, is accepted. I can remember the Railway Act of 1921 and the events which followed it. That Act, as hon. Members well know, provided for the grouping of the railways into the


four groups which we came to know so well during the years between the wars. In the Third Schedule of that Act provision was made to ensure that no employee was by reason of the grouping put in any worse position in comparison with the conditions of service under which he had previously operated. The Schedule states:
No existing officer or servant so transferred shall, without his consent, be by reason of such transfer in any worse position in respect to the conditions of his service as a whole … as compared with the conditions of service formerly obtaining with respect to him.
The next paragraph made provision for arbitration in cases that were disputed. Under the provisions in the Schedule, cases were brought by the trade unions concerned. Certainly my own union brought a case in that connection, and, as some of my hon. Friends who are railway trade unionists will remember, the employees concerned were able to obtain considerable sums in compensation because of the practice of some of the South Wales railways, which were then grouped under the 1921 Act, to retain the services of employees beyond the age which other railways regarded as the normal retiring age.
Like the Mumbles railway, some of the railways concerned employed men until they were physically incapable of pursuing their normal employment. It is clear to me on looking at the Third Schedule in the 1921 Act that the arbitrator said. "This is the will of Parliament". If it were the case that men were employed beyond 65, or what was the normal retiring age for other railway employees, clearly their position would be worsened if they were sacked at 65 years of age. Because of that the arbitrator said, "They shall receive considerable sums in compensation".
I understand that seven men employed by the Mumbles railway could, but for the closure, have expected to continue in their employment until they were physically or mentally incapable of doing their job. This suggested provision relates only to men up to the age of 65. I am asking that the principle, which was so clearly embodied in the Act of 1921, shall also be embodied with equal clarity in the legislation of 1959. Surely, if it were regarded as a suitable provision as far back as 1921, it should be so regarded in 1959. I believe that it is the will of

Parliament that men who are displaced, whose position is worsened, should have their case carefully considered, and that provision should be made to ensure that their position is not worsened by the desire of the South Wales Transport Company to close this railway.

Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Clause 5.—(CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRI ATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.)

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 32, at end insert:
(6A) In determining, for the purposes of the issue of a certificate under this section, whether planning permission for any particular class of development might, in the relevant circumstances, reasonably have been expected to be granted in respect of any land, the local planning authority shall not treat development of that class as development for which planning permission would have been refused by reason only that it would have involved development of the land in question (or of that land together with other land) otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the development plan relating thereto.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
During the discussion of the Amendments moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) I explained the purpose of this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: This is the Lords Amendment to which we moved Amendments. It has been discussed, and I should not feel justified in discussing it again. We are likely to know no more now than we did at the beginning.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Clause 7.—(EXTENSION OF SS. 5 AND 6 TO SPECIAL CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 22, at end insert:
(4A) An application for a certificate made by virtue of subsection (1) or subsection (3) of this section shall specify the matters referred


to in paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the said section five, and shall be accompanied by a statement specifying the date on which a copy of the application has been or will be served on each of the parties directly concerned; and, in relation to such an application, subsection (4) of the said section five shall have effect with the subsitution, for the reference to the date specified in the statement accompanying the application in accordance with paragraph (b) of the said subsection (3), of a reference to the date specified in the statement accompanying the application in accordance with this subsection, or, where more than one date is so specified, the later of those dates.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment to Clause 7 is consequential upon earlier Amendments to Clause 5. They simply provide that a surveyor or valuator who applies for a certificate must state the class or classes of development which he considers to be appropriate and specify the date on which a copy of the application has been or will be served.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO CERTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 25, leave out "of that interest by that authority" and insert:
by that authority of land consisting of or including the land in which that interest subsists".

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is purely a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. Four further drafting and consequential Amendments follow. On this side of the House we would have no objection to these being put en bloc.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(MODIFICATION OF RULES FOR ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 13, line 13. after "of" insert "that Part of".

In line 24, leave out from "prospective" to end of line 26 and insert:
is or would be development arising from the circumstances of the case".

In page 14 line 38, leave out "subsection" and insert "paragraph".

In line 42, leave out from "prospective" to end of line 44 and insert:
is or would be development arising from the circumstances of that case

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 15, at end insert:
(6A) Any reference in this section to development (whether actual or prospective) which is or would be development arising from the circumstances of a case mentioned in the first column of the table set out in subsection (2) of this section—

(a) in relation to any acquisition for purposes involving development of any of the land authorised to be acquired, shall (subject to the next following paragraph) be construed as a reference to development (whether actual or prospective) which would not have been likely to be carried out if the acquiring authority had not acquired, and did not propose to acquire, any of that land, and
(b) in relation to any acquisition falling within one or more of paragraphs 2 to 5 in the said first column, shall be construed as including (or, if the acquisition is not for purposes involving development of any of the land authorised to be acquired, shall be construed as) a reference to any development (whether actual or prospective) which would not have been likely to be carried out if the area or areas referred to in that paragraph or those paragraphs had not been defined for designated as therein mentioned or (in a case falling within paragraph 5) if the scheme therein mentioned had not come into operation."

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment is linked with a previous Amendment to which the House has already agreed.

Mr. Willis: Surely we can have a better explanation than that it is "linked with another Amendment." I find it extremely difficult to conceive that a Lords Amendment of about 20 lines is a drafting Amendment. Could not the right hon. Gentleman or his Parliamentary Secretary tell us what it means?

Mr. Brooke: If I may speak again with the leave of the House I would mention a slight embarrassment, because the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) suggested that a number of these Amendments might be taken together.

Mr. Mitchison: That suggestion was in reference to previous Amendments to this Clause.

Mr. Brooke: The Lords Amendment now under discussion is connected with the Amendment to page 13, line 24, which, with the Amendment in page 14, line 42, remedies a defect in the drafting of the Bill. I will go into further detail if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) would like me to do so. I assure him—I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering will confirm this—that no point of substance arises here.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12.—(OTHER SPECIAL CASES.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 40, at end insert:
(2A) In relation to compulsory acquisitions of interests in land which has been acquired by statutory undertakers for the purposes of their undertaking, the provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of section forty-five of the Act of 1947 (which makes special provision as to the compensation payable in respect of certain acquisitions of land so acquired).

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Lords Amendment is linked with two subsequent Amendments, to lines 42 and 44. The reason for these three Amendments is that the Fourth Schedule to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, which is now contained in the Eleventh Schedule to the 1957 Act, provides the basis for compensation for operational land to statutory undertakers. The amount of compensation under these provisions is, very broadly, the cost of any new land and works necessary to enable the undertaking to continue, together with compensation for any loss which may arise from the changes made necessary in the undertaking. This special basis of compensation still needs to be preserved for cases where operational land is bought. This Amendment, and the two consequential ones, ensure that the provision is not overriden by the general application of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 16, line 42, after "sections" insert "forty-five"

In line 44, after "sections" insert "forty-two"

New Clause "A".—(OUTSTANDING RIGHT TO COMPENSATION FOR REFUSAL, CONDITIONAL GRANT, REVOCATION, OR MODIFICATION OF PLANNING PERMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, line 40, at end insert:
A. (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to a compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies where—

(a) before the service of the notice to treat a planning decision or order has been made in such circumstances as to give rise to a claim for compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land, being land which consists of or includes the whole or part of the relevant land;
(b) whether such a claim has been made or not, no notice stating that compensation has become payable for depreciation of the value of that interest in consequence of that planning decision or order has been registered before the date of service of the notice to treat; but
(c) such a notice is registered on or after that date.

(2) Where the preceding subsection applies, the compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition shall be assessed as if the notice referred to in pararagph (c) of the preceding subsection had been registered before the date of service of the notice to treat and had remained on the register of local land charges on that date.
(3) For the purposes of this section a planning decision or order shall be taken to give rise to a claim for compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land if (subject to the making and determination of a claim in accordance with the relevant provisions, and to the effect of any direction of the Minister under section twenty-three or section forty-five of the Act of 1954) a person is entitled to compensation for depreciation of the value of that interest in consequence of that decision or order.
(4) In this section any reference to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land is a reference to compensation payable either—

(a) under Part II or Part V of the Act of 1954 in respect of depreciation of the value of that interest, or
(b) under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the Act of 1947 in respect of loss or damage consisting of depreciation of the value of that interest;

any reference to registration is a reference to registration in the register of local land charges under subsection (5) of section twenty-eight of the Act of 1954, or under the provisions of that subsection as applied by section thirty-nine or section forty-six of that Act; and 'the relevant provisions', in relation to compensation under Part II or Part V of the Act of 1954, means the provisions of the said Part II, or those provisions as applied by the said Part V, and, in relation to compensation under subsection (1) of section twenty-two


of the Act of 1947, means the provisions of regulations made under the Act of 1947 with respect to claims for compensation under that subsection.
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) for references to the Act of 1947 and section twenty-two of that Act there shall be substituted references respectively to the Scottish Act of 1947 and section twenty of that Act;
(b) for references to the Act of 1954 and to the following provisions of that Act, that is to say, subsection (5) of section twenty-eight, the provisions of that subsection as applied by section thirty-nine, section forty-five and the provisions of the said subsection (5) as applied by section forty-six there shall be substituted respectively references to the Scottish Act of 1954 and the following provisions of that Act. that is to say, subsection (1) of section twenty-nine, section forty-one, section forty-seven and the provisions of the said subsection (1) as applied by section forty-eight;
(c) for any reference to the registration of a notice in the register of local land charges there shall be substituted a reference to the recording of a notice in the appropriate register of sasines; and
(d) in subsection (2), the words from 'and had remained' to the end of the subsection shall be omitted."

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I ought to say a word or two in explanation of this. There are certain planning decisions, for example, the refusal of a permission or the grant of a permission subject to conditions, which may lead to the payment of compensation under Part II or Part V of the 1954 Act. Similarly, the confirmation of an order revoking or modifying a planning permission may lead to compensation under Section 22 of the 1947 Act as qualified by Part IV of the 1954 Act. When this happens, the amount paid is registered in the local land register as a charge on the land, and, unless some part is remitted by the Minister, the amount charged on the land has to be repaid before any future development of the land can take place.
If such land is bought for development in the open market, the price will be reduced because of the liability to repay the charge. Similarly, the compensation on a compulsory purchase with the benefit of assumed planning permission would be reduced. However, this may not, in practice, work properly if the notice to treat is served after the

planning decision or the confirmation of the revocation or modification order but before the registration of the payment of the compensation.
All that it is sought to do by the new Clause proposed in the Lords Amendment is to provide that, in such circumstances, the payment will be deemed to have been registered before the service of notice to treat. The operative feature is that registration is the important thing, and we are putting it right in this way.

Mr. Ross: This is rather important. I am not quite sure that it is as clearly put in legal language as the Parliamentary Secretary would have us assume from his explanation. I found great difficulty in believing that what he suggested was what was being done or that it was being done in that way Subsection (1) begins:
The provisions of this section shall have in relation to a compulsory acquisition to which section one of this Act applies where"—
and then follow paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). One would expect these paragraphs, from the layout, to relate to three specific cases. As far as I can see, no such thing is provided for here at all. It is too late now to invite the Government to look at an Amendment they have accepted, but, to my mind, this is a very illogical way of doing what the hon. Gentleman wishes to have done.
If the Parliamentary Secretary cannot give an explanation or justification for this way of doing it—as far as I can see, there are only two things really concerned, and the Government have confused conditions with specific instances—I hope that we shall have some explanation from the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland. The hon. and learned Gentleman will, of course, have to give us an explanation of the Scottish application. It is here, but we have to turn over to page 4 to find it.
In subsection (5) of the new Clause it is provided that:
In the application of this section to Scotland …
(b) for references to the Act of 1954 and to the following provisions of that Act, that is to say, subsection (5) of section twenty-eight, the provisions of that subsection as applied by section thirty-nine, section forty-five and the provisions of the said subsection (5) as applied by section forty-six there shall be substituted respectively references to the


Scottish Act of 1954 and the following provisions of that Act, that is to say, subsection (1) of section twenty-nine, section forty-one. section forty-seven and the provisions of the said subsection (1) as applied by section forty-eight;
I do not think anybody will quarrel with that. It could not be clearer. But then we go on to paragraph (c):
for any reference to the registration of a notice in the register of local land charges there shall be substituted a reference to the recording of a notice in the appropriate register of sasines".
Let us stop there for a moment.
Whatever is meant by the "appropriate register of sasines"? One would think that there were dozens of such registers. Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland would tell me whether it is legally right or wrong so to describe an historic part of Scottish law and administration of Scottish law in relation to land. I hope that he will not tell me that this is lifted straight from another Act of Parliament, because it is not. This is the kind of slipshod thing to which I referred earlier when we objected to the hurried way in which this had been developed.
If it had been lifted properly from a previous Act of Parliament there would have been a capital "R" to register and a capital "S" to sasines. There is only one so far as I know. If it is right here, then it was wrong in the 1947 Act. "Appropriate register of sasines" takes us back to the law of Scotland in 1868. There were at that time various registers of sasines, but by the Land Registers (Scotland) Act, 1868, Section 8, these particular registers were wiped out and there was substituted one general register.
Certainly within that general register the writs and conveyances coming from particular counties were put into the appropriate county registers within the general register. The fact remains that Section 8 says: the whole of the particular registers of sasines in Scotland should be discontinued. Now, 100 years afterwards, we are talking as if they were still there. If we create new law and do it in the most difficult possible way for Scotsmen to understand, we might as well stick to the letter of the law, even though it was passed in 1868.
The fact is that these registrations will now only be in the general register of sasines. If there is any doubt about that,

I was wondering whether there was any relic of the old burgh registers of sasines, but these were wiped out in 1926. It may well be that there is some relic there, and, if so, we should be told. Why have we got this insult to an ancient and dignified office in Scotland, dating back to the sixteenth century?
Can we have from the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland an explanation of why this has slipped his eagle eye, and can he give an explanation why paragraph (d) states:
'and has remained' to the end of the subsection shall be omitted.
In English law that means that if,
Where the preceding subsection applies … in paragraph (c) …
such a notice is registered in or after that date, the compensation payable in respect of a compulsory acquisition shall be assessed as if the notice referred to in paragraph (c):
had remained on the register of local land charges on that date.
That is in respect of England and Wales, but these vital words are missed out, for some unknown reason, for Scotland. I am eaten up with curiosity as to why these words are left out in respect of Scotland, but are insisted upon in respect of England and Wales.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will receive an answer from the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland, but before that happens I should like to say that from the English angle this is a welcome new Clause. As I have been critical of plenty of the creatures of Government policy in this matter, I wish to make that clear. I think that this new Clause is likely to assist the acquiring authority, but I want to be sure that I have it right.
My understanding is that when we had a refusal of planning permission, compensation might have become payable for that refusal. On the other hand, although compensation either has become payable or has been paid, there may be a liability to recoup the central landlord with the amount of that compensation if, subsequently, permission is given to develop the land in the fashion that had been previously refused, and it is that liability to repay the central landlord


the compensation which is registrable as a land charge.
It is only right and fair, that liability to recoup the central landlord being something that is reducing the market value of the land, that the acquiring authority, in arriving at the compulsory purchase price, should not have to pay an amount in the compulsory purchase price that may have to be paid back to the central landlord in recoupment.
Therefore, the effect of this new Clause is that as the liability for repayment is deemed to have been registered at the date of the service of the notice to treat, the upshot of the whole thing is that the acquiring authority does not have to pay that enhanced value. Therefore, as I understand the position in England—and these are complicated matters—this is a provision that should be welcome to the House. It is favourable to the acquiring authority and I welcome it as such, but I shall be very interested to hear what the Solicitor-General for Scotland has to say to my hon. Friend.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) spoke not as a Scotsman but as a lawyer, but I will try to deal briefly with the two points that have been raised. First of all, "appropriate register of sasines"—the word "register" not having a capital letter—is an old phrase well known to lawyers, despite the Act of Parliament to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has referred. In this connection, it means the appropriate register within the General Register, which was established a long time ago. As I say, it is a phrase well known to lawyers—

Mr. Ross: Then can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell me why, in 1954—I quoted the wrong Act when I referred to 1947—it is referred to in an entirely different way?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Speaking entirely from memory, my recollection is that in the 1954 Act the same phrase was used, possibly with capital letters on the words "register" and "sasines".
As to the further point about the words proposed to be omitted, the position in Scotland is that once the item is on the

register, there it remains. It is accordingly unnecessary to have the words "and had remained" following on in subsection (2) in regard to Scotland—

Mr. Mitchison: I am a mere Sassenach. Is there one register, or more than one? If there is only one register, the word "appropriate" seems unnecessary.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It may be unnecessary, but there is a register with various divisions.

Mr. Ross: But, surely, the Solicitor-General for Scotland appreciates that there is only one register—the general register.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was merely saying that there is one register, and that there are the various appropriate parts of it.

Mr. Willis: Like most explanations that the Solicitor-General for Scotland gave in Committee, this is a deplorable explanation that he has just given us. It is an apologia for failure on his part to ensure that the Bill is correctly worded, and it is a very poor apologia at that. If there is only one register, why use the word "appropriate"? Surely, there is no need for it. One might as well say that the register is divided into pages or something else.
When there is only one register of sasines, why do we want the word "appropriate"? It is all very well for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is a legal phrase which has conmon usage in Scotland, but if it is wrong, is it not time to put it right?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Solicitor-General for Scotland rose—

Mr. Willis: There is no need for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to be too eager. What about the local authority official who has to deal with this matter? He might not be familiar with these provisions. When he reads the Act of Parliament which states
in the appropriate register of sasines",
he does not know, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland knows, that this is a general legal phrase. He immediately starts to find out what it means and he asks, "What is the 'appropriate register'?" When somebody says to him that there is only one register, he replies. "But


there must be more than one register, because the Act says 'the appropriate register'." Therefore, the local authority official who has to deal with this legislation proceeds to waste probably a day in finding out what this means.
Is there not an obligation on the Solicitor-General for Scotland to say what he wants to say in language that is intelligible to the man who has to put it into operation? Surely, the function of this House is to try to make its legislation intelligible and not to clog it up and deceive people by phrases because they happen to have been in use by lawyers many years ago. That is a poor excuse. The Solicitor-General for Scotland should delete this word and put in the capital letters. Then, everybody will know what he is talking about.
As it is, the drafting is misleading. It is liable to cause busy people to waste an immense amount of time quite unnecessarily.

Mr. Mitchison: A sheer waste of printers' ink at a moment of shortage.

Mr. Willis: This is poor draftsmanship. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should make this correction, which has been drawn to his attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Ede: The discussion of the Lords Amendment so far is a complete justification for the objections we made earlier to this way of dealing with the Bill. Here we have a Clause of seventy-one lines which we are asked to take virtually under what would be the last stage in the consideration of the Clause in Committee, when the Chairman would put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." In normal conditions, in view of the observations of my hon. Friends from Scotland, we would have started discussion of the Clause possibly with a number of Amendments to omit certain words, merely to get from the Minister in charge of the Bill an explanation of the exact force of those words in the circumstances in which they were used.
I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was particularly gentle in his handling of the general explanation by the Solicitor-General for Scotland when he came to

what he said about subsection (5, c). As one who has had considerable administrative experience in the handling of Town and Country Planning Acts since the first of those Measures was introduced into this House by John Burns nearly half a century ago, I know the difficulties which confront ordinary people whether they be members of councils or persons whose business happens to bring them within the realm of the operation of those Acts.
When there is a reference to "the appropriate register" the first thing which happens is that a man inquires for the register. He gets the register. If he does not find the charge in which he is interested entered in that register, then when the word "appropriate" is in front of the word "register", he is haunted by the fear that he may not have got hold of the register in which the charge in which he is interested has been registered.
It seems to me that it is highly important that this matter should not be left in the unsatisfactory condition in which the explanation by the Solicitor-General for Scotland has left it. With each attempt at dealing with the points raised by my hon. Friends he really has only introduced fresh causes for misgivings. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) very kindly gave us what the Government did not give us—an explanation of the Clause. He gave us an explanation of the Clause as he understood it to be. Having listened to a good many expositions of town and country planning legislation by gentlemen learned in the law I have generally found that there is plenty of room for dispute between them, and that when we have five of them explaining a Section then at the end we have had six explanations tendered to us. I should like to know whether the Government agree with what my hon. and learned Friend said.
This is a highly technical Clause and it appears to me to provide for cases in which compensation has become payable but has not yet been registered as a land charge, the compensation to be assessed as if there had been registration. Of course, those are so few words into which to condense the meaning of the Clause that I am quite sure that there are several catches in it which I have


not managed to spot, as I have been trying to reduce it to layman's language.
The Government ought to give some explanation why this Clause is here at all. We were told, when the original Bill was before the House, that it would be necessary in another place to introduce a Clause of this nature? Why was it not included in the original Bill? Is there anything which was in the original Bill which has been struck out by the various Lords Amendments to strike things out of the original Bill and which is now replaced by this Clause?
I think that on a Clause of 71 lines, 22 of which are about the application of the Bill to Scotland, the Government ought to be able to give us and ought to give us some further explanation beyond the very short one which was tendered by the Parliamentary Secretary. I am quite sure he would not have expected to get away with as short an answer on the Clause as a whole had he followed the ordinary procedure and had he been replying to a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." After all, that is what we are restricted to on the procedure which the Government have seen fit to force on the House in handling the matter in the way which the Government have chosen.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: I understand my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr Ede) being in difficulty about the Clause. I think that his difficulty arises from his being a very distinguished Unitarian. If he were a Trinitarian he would not have found it difficult because what the Government are doing is to introduce a Clause from the Athanasian Creed into the Bill. It is an odd use of the powers of a revising Chamber. As I understand the situation, there is one register of sasines—if I pronounce the word correctly.

Mr. Sparks: Assassins?

Mr. MacColl: Within that register there is a series of different volumes, or in whatever it may be that sasines are put, for each district, and therefore the appropriate register of sasines is one that is appropriate to a particular area in the whole register. The position to a Trinitarian like myself is child's play to understand.

Mr. Ede: Could my hon. Friend help us by telling us what is a sasine?

Mr. MacColl: I can. I have spent happy hours, believe it or not, in the Register Office in reading through the registers, because my brother was a keen genealogist and I was press-ganged into copying them out. They are most fascinating and interesting documents with a great deal of historical value attached to them. If there was a disposition of land affecting a member of my own particular clan there would be found in the sasine the names of all the tribal ancestors going back to the particular MacColl who had obtained the grant several centuries ago and to the original founder of the clan. There is, therefore, a very considerable genealogical value in these documents. In those days they were different registers, before the Athanasian Creed was introduced into Scottish law.
Now, I gather, there is one register, but yet there are appropriate registers within the one register. If the Government think that they are helping the ordinary, common man to get round this bewildering rigmarole, which is at the best of times a complicated piece of legislation, why make things more difficult? If the Government could not have found better use for their time in another place than to introduce something as complicated and difficult as this they ought to have abandoned the Bill long ago. They are making the thing an absolute mockery. Nobody will understand what a particular Clause of the Bill means.
The Bill is becoming completely confused and is breaking down. The only people who can keep it together are my two hon. and learned Friends the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) who clearly understand more about it than anybody on the Government Front Bench. If only my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill could be appointed Solicitor-General for Scotland pro tern across the Floor, we might have some lucid explanation of what the Bill means and we might get to bed some time tonight.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The Question is that—

Mr. Gibson: Surely somebody is going to reply to the very authoritative and important request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) for information about what is happening, why it is happening and whether this provision replaces something which we have not yet spotted. This gets more and more curious as we go along. It is not fair to the House or to the public, or to those who will have to administer the Bill if it becomes an Act, that the clause should go by without the Government at any rate trying to explain what they are doing.

Mr. Bevins: If I may reply, by leave of the House and out of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, I would say simply that the difficulty we are trying to tackle by this proposed Clause arises chiefly in cases of compulsory purchase, where the notice to treat is served after the planning decision, whatever that planning decision may be, but before registration of the payment of compensation. The Clause states that in those circumstances the payment will have been deemed to be registered before the service of notice to treat. That, of course, will have its impact on the compulsory purchase price which is paid for the benefit of an assumed planning permission.

Mr. Sparks: There is one question I want to ask on the English aspect of the proposed Clause.

Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend is not forgetting that we have not yet solved the Scottish problem?

Mr. Sparks: There may be some possible connection between the two. Subsection (1) reads:
The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to a compulsory acquisition to which Section one of this Act applies where—
Then it refers to the registration of a notice to treat, which appears in paragraph (a) and (b), and states that such a notice must be registered, presumably in some document. I have read through the Clause and the only link I can make with the question of registration of a notice to treat, as referred to in subsection (1), is in subsection (4) which states:
In this section any reference to compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land is a reference to compensation payable cither"—

then came paragraphs (a) or (b), followed by these words:
any reference to registration is a reference to registration in the register of local land charges under subsection (5) of section twenty-eight of the Act of 1954, or under the provisions of that subsection as applied by section thirty-nine or section forty-six of that Act …
I am not clear what those words have to do with the registration referred to in subsection (1), which speaks of the registration of a notice to treat. Do they mean that the notice to treat must be registered in the register of local land charges under either of the various Sections mentioned there?
There is another question as to whether there is one register in this case or whether there are special divisions of the register applying to the different Sections of different Acts there enumerated. There is also a reference in subsection (3) which reads:
For the purposes of this section a planning decision or order shall be taken to give rise to a claim for compensation for depreciation of the value of an interest in land if (subject to the making and determination of a claim in accordance with the relevant provisions …
Subsection (4) states:
'the relevant provisions,' in relation to compensation under Part II or Part V of the Act of 1954, means the provisions of the said Part II, or those provisions as applied by the said Part V, and, in relation to compensation under subsection (1) of section twenty-two of the Act of 1947, means the provisions of regulations made under the Act of 1947 with respect to claims for compensation under that subsection.
I do not know whether any Member of the House knows exactly what that means, but I suggest that it is extremely complicated, and I cannot see what connection it has with the reference to "relevant provisions" in subsection (4) of the proposed Clause.
I do not know whether anybody on the Treasury Bench can indicate to us what precisely is the connection between the notice to treat being registered as outlined in subsection (1) and this reference to registration in subsection (4). Are they one and the same thing? Has the notice to treat to be registered in a different register? Presumably, it would be registered by the local authority. If the local authority issued a notice to treat, it would be entered in some form of register by the local authority, but that would not be, I should have thought,


the local land charges register. Are we involved in one, two or more registrations here? If the notice to treat must be registered in the local land charges register, it should be clearly stated that that is so.
This is very confusing, and I do not know whether we shall have any better luck than my Scottish hon. Friends have had in trying to get an explanation of the wording of that part of the Clause which refers to Scotland. I hope that somebody can give us an explanation of what we are talking about when we refer to registers and registrations, because it is not by any means clear, and we ought to have advice on what is the connection between subsections (1) and (4).

Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), I think he has rather misread this Clause. If the hon. Gentleman has a later opportunity of reading it in detail, he will find that it is quite clear that registration refers to certain compensation payments which are payable in certain circumstances. I referred to that when I first spoke on this new Clause. There is, in fact, no question of registering the notice to treat. It is simply a question of registering the compensation in the local land charges register.

Mr. Ross: Surely, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the word "notice" in line 10 is singularly unfortunate?

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 17.—(ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR NEW PLANNING PERMISSION IN RESPECT OF LAND ACQUIRED.)

Lords Amendment: In line 7, after first "the" insert "principal".

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will probably notice that this Amendment and the next Lords' Amendment to line 10 are in identical terms and are linked together. If hon. Members will look at page 38 of the Amendment Paper, they will find a number of Amendments there which are consequential and on the same point. The first one of those Amendments,

which is in identical terms, is the Amendment to page 75, line 39, on page 38, and the next eight Amendments are all linked and consequential.
The point is a comparatively simple one. If an authority exercises powers, in pursuance of a notice to treat, to enter upon and take possession of land before the completion of the acquisition, it is liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation ultimately determined from the date of entry on the land until the date of payment.
9.15 p.m.
If under Clauses 17–19 additional compensation becomes payable, it would obviously be wrong for interest to become payable on the additional compensation from the original date of entry to the date when that additional compensation is paid, which, after all, may be several years later.
These Amendments, therefore, make it clear that in assessing any amount of additional compensation it is only the principal amounts which are to be taken into account and no question of interest arises.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that we have very strong objections to the Clause. I do not propose to repeat them, but, given the Clause, this is a provision which would assist acquiring authorities to avoid any injustice which might otherwise have arisen and prejudiced them. Therefore, while I must not be taken as welcoming the Clause or any part of it in any way, I should like to be Irish and welcome these Amendments

Question put and agreed to.

Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 10, after first "the" insert "principal".—[Mr. H. Brooke]

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 30, leave out from "plan" to "as" in line 33.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It would perhaps be convenient if at the same time we were also to take the Amendment in page 22, line 28, at end insert:
and any reference to an area defined in a development plan is a reference to an area defined in such a plan in the form in which


(whether as originally approved or made by the Minister or as subsequently amended) that plan was in force on the relevant date.
These are purely drafting Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 11, after "other" insert "act or", read a Second time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "act", to insert:
(other than a disposition made by that person)
This raises a not very large point but one of some interest. The general effect of the Clause is that where a change is made within a given period in the use to which the acquiring authority puts the purchased land and that change results in the land having a higher value than it would otherwise have had, the person to whom compensation was originally paid will get additional compensation because of that change of purpose by the local authority.
I will not repeat the very strong objections which we made to the whole principle of the Clause in Committee. I will merely say that the Clause introduces a principle as between the acquiring authority and the owner of the land which cannot possibly apply in a transaction between two private people. If I buy a piece of land from the right hon. Gentleman, and buy it for one purpose, the fact that some two or three years afterwards I change my mind and put the land to a more profitable use does not entitle him to any additional price. But what is introduced in the Bill, as we think most unfairly and most unfortunately, is that when exactly the same thing happens between an acquiring authority and a private owner the private owner gets the benefit of the addition. If the acquiring authority does the opposite and puts the land to a less profitable use, it does not get any refund of the compensation it had to pay on the original transaction.
What is intended now, as I understand it, is this. If a person dies or goes bankrupt and by reason of that death or bankruptcy this conditional right to additional compensation vests in someone else, his heir or trustee in bankruptcy, then the heir or trustee in bankruptcy should be entitled in his own right to take the benefit of the additional compensation. That

was provided for originally by the word "event" in the Clause. Now the word "act" is added and that opens the door to another question: whether we are to have this remarkable, original and, as we think, unjust right which can be passed from one person to another.
As we read it, the effect of adding the word "act" in these circumstances would be that the person who had originally received compensation could sell the hypothetical right to additional compensation. It might go with the land, or it might not go with the land. I am very interested in that.
Therefore, we would like to exclude the introduction of this very odd right as something which could be disposed of by the person holding it during the period in question, five years. I see no particular reason why he should be able to dispose of it and I can see some speculative possibilities which I do not find at all attractive. I can see a marshalling of a number of these hypothetical rights in the hands of one person and a gamble, in effect, on whether a local authority will change its mind.
While I am not attributing any particular wickedness to anybody, it seems to me to be wrong that there should be people to whom the right could pass by a voluntary act and who will accordingly be interested in a gamble on the use to which the local authority may put the land within the next five years. I hope that I have not misunderstood the effect or possibilities. This is an intricate Clause, and there is always that possibility.
Quite clearly, if the word "act" is left by itself, we get into a rather different category through "event". "Act" might and in ordinary language does include the voluntary act of the person who was entitled to compensation in the first place and who would be entitled to this additional compensation in certain events.
I trust that the Government will accept our Amendment. If the Lords Amendment has the meaning and effect I attribute to it, there can be no harm whatever in excluding the voluntary dispositions of the person, and our Amendment might well be accepted. When I search for the reasons why it should be refused, I find nothing more specific than a certain reluctance, which I have noticed from time to time in the right hon. Gentleman, to


accept Opposition Amendments, however meritorious, sensible, wise and attractive they obviously are.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so with certain qualifications. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies for the Government he will deal with this difficulty. Is he not assuming that death comes to a person only unsought?

Mr. Gibson: It usually does.

Mr. MacColl: But one can kill oneself, and I think that I am right in saying that one's estate can benefit if one does kill oneself. It is not like not being able to benefit from murder. My hon. and learned Friend might be able to help on that. If death includes suicide, it might be open to the Government to argue that the Clause as at present drafted covers not only events happening to people, but also voluntary acts and that therefore the analysis of the meaning of the Clause which my hon. and learned Friend very clearly gave may not be complete. I am not sure about that, and I think it ought to be cleared up.
On the assumption that the Clause is meant to deal with the occurrence of something which is unsought, such as death or bankruptcy, I think it is introducing—

Mr. Mitchison: Bankruptcy is sometimes sought.

Mr. MacColl: My hon. and learned Friend is a man wise in the ways of the world and I am not. I am innocent in these matters. I am one of those simple-minded people who think that bankruptcy and fire are things that hit business men as an act of God, unsought, unexpected and unwanted. I should like to keep my simple faith as long as I can.

Mr. Ede: Why complicate it by being a Trinitarian?

Mr. MacColl: Although I am provoked by my right hon. Friend, I think I had better control myself because I do not want to hold up the proceedings of the House. I am anxious to push on with our discussion of the Lords Amendments.
On the assumption that this is dealing with external events happening to somebody, it is quite wrong that this change, which would introduce at this stage of the consideration of the Bill the question of somebody being able to try and gamble on what the local authority is going to do, should be made.
I can see it leading to all sorts of corruption. Somebody might try to obtain secret information from a planning department of any possible change before the change is announced so that it is possible to deal with things of this sort. The Clause in its present form is indefensible, and this only makes it a great deal worse. I do not know where the Government are going to stop. One goes on getting more and more bewildered in this headlong career into obscurity.

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is becoming bewildered. I am sure it is not infectious on this side of the House. All that subsection (5) of the Clause does is to provide for the transfer of any right to claim compensation where the person who is entitled to the original compensation under Clause 17 has died or some other event has taken place whereby any right to receive compensation would be vested in some other person.
My right hon. Friend is proposing to insert the words "act or" because there is some doubt whether the word "event" alone, which is already in the Bill, is wide enough to cover, for example, an assignment of this right.
If the Lords Amendment is accepted, in addition to death and bankruptcy we shall be covering such things as the assignment of the assets on the voluntary liquidation of companies. As I understand it, the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) would have the effect of preventing the person who would have the right of claiming extra compensation from assigning his right to anybody else.
9.30 p.m.
I am advised that the word "disposition", which is used in the Opposition Amendment, is a very wide one, which, amongst other things, would prevent an assignment upon the voluntary liquidation of a company and might lead to difficulties in the dissolution of a partnership or


the creation of a trust. I am informed that a disposition, in law, is any disposal of property in any manner whatsoever, by sale, gift, will, declaration of trust, and so forth.
I understand that the hon. and learned Member's principal motive is to prevent speculation in these rights and, as he says, it is a relatively narrow front upon which the Amendment is being argued. But the House should be clear that all that we are dealing with here is the assignment of these rights before the planning decision to use the land for a more valuable purpose has been taken by the local authority. In those circumstances it is rather difficult to see how speculation could creep in to the picture, mainly because of the uncertainty which surrounds the whole of these transactions. I cannot see how that possibility would come about.

Mr. MacColl: Let us suppose that a land speculator has a corrupt contact in an authority and obtains secret information about a proposed change in the future, which has not been published or approved by the council, but is circulating in the Department. He can buy up the rights to compensation—the vicious thing that happened in years gone by—from people who think that they are worthless, and so be able to claim a substantial profit later on, probably tax-free.

Mr. Mitchison: Let us suppose, too, that the property was originally taken over for use as an open space, and that the council decided that it would put up a considerable municipal building there, or a block of flats. Let us suppose that it goes to a builder, or someone concerned with these matters, in order to find out what the project would cost. The builder will say to himself, "Well, if that is the position it is worth my while going round and buying the right to additional compensation in respect of this bit of land. It will become much more valuable when the block of flats is put up on it." Surely that is undesirable.

Mr. Bevins: That is undesirable, but it would not happen. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) have given away their case, for the reason that if by some process of jiggery-pokery a speculator obtained inside knowledge of the intentions of a local

authority which had bought a piece of land for one purpose and within a period of five years was toying with the idea of using it for a more valuable purpose, and, if that speculator wanted to acquire the right, under the Clause he would have to go to the person possessing the right, and that person would be put on his guard at once. He would realise the possibilities and in those circumstances he would not dream of disposing of his right for a fraction of what it was worth. He would know that something was in the wind.
My right hon. Friend is merely saying that if this right to additional compensation should be paid under the Clause as a whole it is also right that these rights to extra compensation on change of intention should be transferable, whatever the circumstances.

Mr. Sparks: There is another point which requires clarification. In the main, we are dealing with cases where a local authority, having acquired a piece of land for a particular purpose, uses it for another purpose within the period of five years, and where this alternative purpose would attract a greater value. This greater value may be paid by way of compensation to the owner of the land from whom it was acquired five years previously. This is one of the difficulties of the Bill.
We considered earlier the case where a local authority, by compulsory acquisition or voluntary agreement, acquired a piece of land shown on the development plan to be designated for a particular use. In considering the compensation to be paid for it, the owner of the land could, and undoubtedly would, make a claim for compensation based upon a use different from the use designated in the development plan. We decided that in such a case the local authority should not refuse the claim just because the use was different from that designated in the development plan.
In this case that means that the local authority, which might want to acquire the land for the purpose of an open space, would have to pay compensation to the owner based on a different use, for example, an industrial use. In the meantime, the local authority decides to use the piece of land not as an open space but for another purpose, perhaps for a


sewage farm or for housing. How do we tie up the compensation in such a case?
In the first place, the owner of the land will have received a rate of compensation upon a claim for a use which would attract a higher value than that attracted were the land used for the purpose for which the local authority originally acquired it. Now the local authority proposes to use it not as an open space, shall we say, but as the site of a sewage farm, or a store, or a warehouse. What additional compensation will be payable to the owner of the land because the local authority has changed the proposed use and because the alternative use to which the land will be put will have a higher value than the original use? Is the owner of the land to get that also?

Mr. Bevins: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not the subject of the Amendment that has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. It has nothing whatever to do with it.

Mr. Sparks: That may not be, but it has a very distinct connection with this problem.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the Amendment to the proposed Lords Amendment deals with that subject.

Mr. Sparks: My remarks have a very close connection with it, although they may not be directly connected. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wants to include other words which have some connection with the point that we are considering.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Possibly it has some connection, but it is a good bit away from it.

Mr. Sparks: I am referring to the use to which land may be put and am looking at it from the local authority point of view. The local authority has the land, but wants to use it for another purpose. We are concerned here with who is to receive the higher value created by the change of use.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All that is not in the Amendment that we are discussing.

Mr. Sparks: All right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This emphasises once again the complexities of the whole matter. I think it has some connection, but I will leave it there.

Mr. Gibson: I would call the attention of the House to the Amendment which we are moving to remove the cause of all the trouble. We have been told by the Parliamentary Secretary what may happen if we put these words "act or" into the Clause, as the Lords Amendment proposes. Some legal advisers have told us that they are quite unnecessary. Is there any special reason why we should put them in? We have not been told of it. Why should we, so to speak, break our necks to benefit people who have certain forms of property? We dislike the whole Clause. Judging from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, adding the words "act or" would widen the effect of the Clause and give a few more people another little dip into the pockets of local authorities for compensation.

Mr. Bevins: The effect of the Amendment would not be to enable any more people to have another little dip into anybody's pockets. All it would do is to extend the possibility of the transfer of these rights not only to cases of death and bankruptcy but to assignment of the assets on voluntary liquidation.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. I know we are discussing a Lords Amendment which is related to the question of—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are discussing an Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).

Mr. Ross: I am safeguarding my right to refer to certain Amendments that I believe are being taken along with the original one. I am satisfied.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 22, line 12, after "that", insert "act or".

In line 16, after "that" insert "act or".

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 28, at end insert:
and any reference to an area defined in a development plan is a reference to an area defined in such a plan in the form in which (whether as originally approved or made by the Minister or as subsequently amended) that plan was in force on the relevant date".

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask the Minister why he proposes to add these words at the end of line 28? I think that they appear in another part of the Bill and it is proposed to delete them. What is the reason for putting the additional words here at the end of line 28?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): These are all consequential Amendments.

Mr. Mitchison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With respect, I doubt whether this is quite a consequential Amendment. I think it is a drafting Amendment and nothing more. I do not wish to interfere with anything anyone wants to say, but, so far as I can see, all the Amendments down to and including the Amendment in page 23, line 27, are either drafting or consequential. If I may make a special reference to one of them, because it really deserves it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, they include the Amendment in page 22, line 41, where another place inserted the momentous words, "the following, that is to say".

Mr. Sparks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If this is consequential, I do not know whether it is consequential on the second one or—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. This one is drafting. The next one is consequential.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 37.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This one is consequential.

Mr. Sparks: Consequential on what?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On the Amendment in page 21, line 10.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am not quite sure where we are. If we have reached the Amendment in page 22, line 29, I should like to say a word on that.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We have reached it now.

Mr. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is linked with a number of subsequent Amendments. Perhaps I could mention them now and then explain the whole matter. It is linked with the following Amendments: In page 22, line 38, in page 25, line 6, the new Clause "B", the Amendments in page 27, line 2, in page 27, line 6, in page 27, line 15, in page 27, line 26, and in page 64, line 32.

Mr. Ross: Purely drafting!

Mr. Brooke: I am informed that in line 61 of the new Clause "B", on page 7 of the Notice Paper, there is a misprint. The word "eighteen" should read "seventeen".
Very briefly, as the House knows, the right to claim additional compensation—I am aware that the Opposition oppose it—arises where a planning decision which gives permission for additional development is taken within five years from the acquisition of the land. Clause 17 (7) does not cover all the relevant ways in which planning permission might be granted. It fails also to put beyond doubt the date of the planning decision in all these circumstances. It does not, for instance, specifically cover a planning permission which is given by a development order.
As I said, there may in some cases be doubt about the date of a planning permission where that permission is a permission deemed to be granted. This group of Amendments, therefore, is intended to delete the part of subsection (7) which deals with deemed planning permissions and to insert the new Clause "B". The new Clause extends the provision of Clauses 17 or 18 to all the relevant special types of planning permission and it specifies in each case the date which is to be taken as the date of the planning permission. In other words, this is purely a tidying-up group of Amendments to make the provision comprehensive and also to prevent the


doubts which might otherwise arise when the Bill reaches the Statute Book as to the date which is relevant for the purposes of these provisions.

Mr. Sparks: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether you will allow a debate on the new Clause "B", on page 6, in connection with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is now moving, in line 29, leave out from the beginning to the end of line 37?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, I think it goes with this set of Amendments.

Mr. Sparks: It will be frightfully difficult to connect up about twenty other consequential Amendments to which the Minister has referred. He spoke so fast that we could not make a note of them. Are we discussing all those consequential Amendments now on this Motion?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: At the moment we are discussing only the Amendment, in line 29, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 37.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friends. There are very many real points that we object to in this Amendment, but personally I think that this one has to be accepted. I disagree entirely, as all of us do on this side of the House, with the general principle to which the right hon. Gentleman referred and to which he knows quite well our objection.
If the principle is to be applied to actual planning permissions it seems to me quite illogical not to apply it also to deemed planning permissions and to cases where planning permission is given, for instance, by a development order. As I read this Clause, it really is a tidying up Clause, which does no more than apply what we regard as a wrong principle to these cases. That is to say—I hope that I am not going to be shot from behind—we on this side of the House think that it is a thoroughly bad principle, but if it is to apply to the cases in the Bill, this Amendment seems to be necessary, otherwise we should have a quite untenable distinction between one kind of planning permission and another.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Minister drew

attention to what he called a misprint, but what I would prefer to call a mistake, in page 7, line 61, and he said that the word "eighteen" should be "seventeen". I have noticed one or two things like this, and I asked Mr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, whether it would be in order for me to move a manuscript Amendment to put these things right. He said that it would be out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that these Amendments came correctly from another place. Our printer made an error and this is rectifying his mistake. I understand that the original draft was correct.

Mr. Ross: Can the Government tell us if they know of any other errors or misprints of that kind, and whether or not the ones that I have in mind are real errors or misprints?

Mr. H. Brooke: May I ask the leave of the House to speak again? The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the printing of Lords Amendments is not a responsibility of the Government. It is a responsibility of the authorities of the House. It was brought to my attention that there was a misprint and I thought that it was my duty in dealing with this Clause to mention it to the House. I have not had any others notified to me.

Mr. Mitchison: With the leave of the House, may I say that what this illustrates with regard to the Government is the sort of trouble we get into when we try to hustle Bills through the machinery of Parliament too fast. Then this kind of thing happens. To do it when there is a notorious shortage of printers' ink is just asking for trouble.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is a mistake by the authorities of the House I take the responsibility. I apologise and regret it very much.

Mr. Ross: If it was brought to the attention of the Minister, he should have put down an Amendment. Many of us have lost quite a lot of time as a result of misleading information, in trying to follow the Amendments in relation to the original Bill. I have more than a feeling that this error or misprint was probably pointed out to the Minister only about twenty minutes ago, and I am wondering whether, as we proceed with these


Amendments, and they will occupy us until quite late, the right hon. Gentleman will spot any more, or be told of any more.

Mr. Ede: The Minister read out a list of Amendments, which, he said, were linked with the one he moved. Can you tell me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, if we accept the Amendment that he has actually moved, we shall then be told that all the others that he mentioned are merely consequential on that one—particularly the new Clause B, which runs to 61 lines?
I do not say anything other than to accept the word of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—who, I know, has given a very great deal of time to a detailed study of this huge volume of Amendments—but I did not gather that we had from the Minister any explanation of the new Clause B—certainly nothing like the explanation that would have had to be given, even on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" had this been in the original Bill.
We are now being asked to deal with a number of other small Amendments to which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) has said, the right hon. Gentleman alluded so quickly that although I had marked all the Amendments from 1 to 222 that appear in the volume I really was not able to spot those that he was mentioning. He had by then begun to jump over three or four in a kind of kangaroo movement of his own which made it quite impossible to find out what we are being asked to accept as being involved in the discussion on the compartively small Amendment to move out comparatively few words of the Bill. What will be the position when we pass from this Amendment—on the assumption that it is accepted—and then come, at odd stages in the proceedings during the next three of four hours, to the various other Amendments to which the Minister also alluded?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I gathered that after the Amendment in line 29, the Amendment in line 38 is consequential, and that those in lines 41 and 27 are drafting, and then we come on to the Amendment in page 24, line 29.

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have permission to speak again, I certainly did

not want to take these Amendments too quickly, nor was I suggesting that the first was consequential on others that followed. The main Amendment is, of course, the new Clause, and I am perfectly willing to give the House a detailed analysis of that new Clause if it should be desired.
What I was doing—and I hoped that I had satisfied at any rate the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—was to indicate the general purpose of this group of linked Amendments—the new Clause being the main Amendment, and the others being minor ones that are essential to it. The meat of this group, however, comes in the new Clause, and, as I explained—and as, I think, the hon. and learned Gentleman has accepted—the purpose of the new Clause is to make the list complete. It would otherwise be incomplete, and it would be anomalous for Parliament to leave it so.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: The Minister said that the meat of all the various consequential Amendments is contained in new Clause "B". I do not know whether we can discuss that now or must wait until we come to it.

Mr. Speaker: We had better wait until we reach it.

Mr. Sparks: We are confused as to the purport of this Amendment to leave out certain words, together with all the other consequential Amendments. The Explanatory Memorandum states as follows in relation to Clause 17, which we are now amending:
Clauses 17–19 and the Third Schedule provide that where, within five years after the acquisition of land, planning permission is granted for additional development, or, where no planning permission is required, additional development is commenced, and the compensation payable would have been greater had planning permission for the additional development been in existence at the date of notice to treat, the original owner will be entitled to claim additional compensation corresponding to the amount of the increase.
We can understand that—at least, I hope we can. The title of the Clause is
Additional compensation for new planning permission in respect of land acquired.
The Lords Amendment, in page 22, line 29, would leave out all the words from the beginning of that line to the end of line 37.
The Minister said that he was making this deletion because there were certain cases in which planning permission had not been given. It passes my comprehension how a local authority can acquire a piece of land for a use for which it has no planning permission. A local authority must get planning permission to use a piece of land. Therefore, presumably, planning permission would have been given on the first occasion when it desired to acquire the land. I cannot conceive of any case where it could acquire the land without planning permission for the use to which it sought to put the land. Subsequently, within a period of five years the local authority might want it for another use and, presumably, applies for planning permission for the new use. Again, it could not possibly use the land for another purpose without having the planning permission.
Does the Clause refer to planning permission to be obtained by a local authority for the use of land which it has acquired? If we can be told whether that is what we are referring to, it would considerably clear the air. We are somewhat confused by the fact that a claim for compensation may be made based upon a use other than that to which the local authority will put the land. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) shaking his head. I take nobody's advice on this, least of all the advice of any hon. Member on the other side.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to ask my hon. Friend to shut up?

Mr. Gibson: It is bad manners.

Mr. Speaker: It is an unfortunate expression and should not be used among Parliamentarians.

Mr. Sparks: I can well understand that we are getting in difficulty with this dreadful Bill and the Clauses which it contains. I do not know how many of us, including the Minister, understand what is in the Bill.
What I was trying to do was to get a clear impression of what the Minister intends in the whole series of consequential Lords Amendments he is

putting before us tonight, because if this is the granting of planning permissions for development really it means planning permissions which the local authority has to obtain first of all when it acquires a site for use and secondly within five years if it requires to change the use. That is the second planning permission. I can understand that, but it is further complicated, as I said before, by the fact that the owner of the land may make application for planning permission for a use different from that to which the local authority wants to put the land, and that planning permission has in certain circumstances to be granted. The planning permission is granted for the purpose of compensation and it may be for a use which is quite different from that to which the local authority is going to put it.
What I am concerned to find out is what planning permissions we are really talking about here. Does this refer to planning permissions which the local authority must obtain for the first use of the site, and then, if it changes its mind, and wants it for another use, for that use? That is the second planning permission. If that is all we are referring to, I think it considerably clears the air, but I do not think anybody at the moment can say whether it is so or not. If the hon. Gentleman can tell us what planning permissions we are concerned with in this Clause 17 (7) I am sure it will be helpful.

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may have the permission of the House to speak again I should like to say to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) that I think that if he reads in HANSARD tomorrow what I said when I was moving, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," he will find that I really answered his questions in advance. There are two points here. First of all, there are planning permissions which are not given by a local planning authority. A development order can be made by the Minister.
I am sure the hon. Member is familiar with the general development order, 1950. The effect of a development order made by the Minister may be to grant additional planning permissions where they did not exist beforehand. I am sure the hon. Member would assent to the proposition that they should not be treated for the purposes of this Part of


the Bill in any different way from any ordinary planning permission. That would be quite anomalous. So one of the purposes of this group of Lords Amendments, of which, as I say, the new Clause is the heart, is to make sure that planning permissions granted by a development order are covered.
The second class with which we are dealing here is another kind with which I am sure the hon. Member is also familiar from his experience.

Mr. Sparks: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes on to the second class perhaps he would clear this up. The general development order which carries with it a planning permission; who is to receive the benefit of that development order? Is it a development order granted to the local authority for its developments? I can understand that. Or is it a general development order for somebody else other than the local authority? We are concerned here with a local authority acquiring land for its own use. Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to a general development order in relation to the use to which the local authority will put the land? I can understand that.

Mr. Brooke: What we are dealing with here is an order which may be made at some subsequent date and which may have the effect of granting a new planning permission for a piece of land which is acquired by this Bill. It will not be a specific development order for that particular piece of land. A development order made by the Minister does normally have effect as regards all land of a particular character. It might be that a piece of land compulsorily acquired, to which this Part of the Bill applied, was affected by a development order of that kind.
The other class is the case with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is also familiar, of deemed planning permission. He will know that there are certain kinds of planning permission which are deemed to be granted. There the point at issue is, what should be the crucial date? At what date was planning permission deemed to have been granted?
The Clause as it left the House did not clarify that matter, and we might have had cases in the courts to settle

a dispute as to what was the relevant date. The other main purpose of the new Clause is to put beyond doubt what the date is at which the deemed planning permission shall be deemed to have been granted. I will willingly explain the Clause subsection by subsection if the House wishes, but that is its meaning, as I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has recognised.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 22, line 38, leave out "and the two next following sections" and insert:
section and in the following provisions of this Part of this Act".

In line 41, at end insert "the following, that is to say".

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 27, leave out from "if" to "and" in line 31 and insert:
for paragraph (d) thereof there were substituted the following paragraph, that is to say—
(d) to land acquired by a local authority, whether compulsorily or by agreement, where on the relevant date the land consisted or formed part of an area to which a town development scheme under Part II of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, related".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment deals with cases where additional compensation should not be payable. It is really a drafting Amendment and applies to Scotland only. Section 13 of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957, enables the receiving authority to acquire land within the area defined in accordance with that Act as a town development scheme area. The Amendment substitutes for a reference to Section 13 the new paragraph (d) explanatory of the acquisitions intended to be covered. This will meet criticisms made on previous stages in that it removes to some extent legislation by reference. It gives what we hope is a clear statement and avoids the possibility of confusion arising from subsection 4 (d) which was moved at an earlier stage of our proceedings.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 29, leave out paragraph (d) and insert:
(d) if in accordance with the last preceding paragraph a person would be entitled to additional consideration in respect of an acquisition or sale, but before the planning decision in question that person has died, or any other act or event has occurred whereby the right to the additional consideration, if vested in him immediately before that act or event, would thereupon have vested in some other person, the right to the additional consideration shall be treated as having devolved as if that right had been vested in him immediately before his death or immediately before that act or event, as the case may be, and the additional consideration shall be payable to the persons claiming under him accordingly.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely drafting Amendment. It is a rewrite of the paragraph as it stands at present.

Mr. Ross: I do not think the Joint Under-Secretary is quite right in saying that it is a rewrite. It is nothing of the kind, because it incorporates an Amendment which we have just made to the English part of the Clause. It incorporates an Amendment the rights to discuss which at this point I sought to safegard with an intervention earlier. We are now meandering down from dominium utile to the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845 and its related section as read with Section 62 of the Scottish Act of 1954. I am always very doubtful, as one with great respect for the clarity of Scottish law, when we find ourselves enacting a Clause or paragraph which is word for word with English law. The Joint Under-Secretary knows as well as I do that there are important historical differences in relation to even the meanings of phrases and words.
10.15 p.m.
This will mean the payment by the acquiring authority of what is nicely known as additional consideration—nothing so sordid as compensation—to the land superiors in Scotland in respect of the discharge of feu duties and the like. It is their share of what additional is going in respect of an additional planning decision. These words concern me:
… any other act or event has occurred whereby the right to the additional consideration … would thereupon have vested in some other person …

And the local authority has to pay the additional consideration which shall be payable to "the persons claiming under him accordingly". I want to know what that phrase means in Scottish law: the local authority or the acquiring authority has to pay "the persons claiming under him". I should have thought it meant persons who had established the right to claim, not just persons claiming.
Once again there is a looseness here that does not satisfy me and which we would not let slip past quite so easily if we had been dealing with this matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. I am not sure that what pleases the English lawyers would satisfy the ordinary Scottish lay back bencher as adequate and right in the circumstances.

Mr. Willis: I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will reply. We have already asked numerous questions to which neither he nor the Joint Under-Secretary has thought fit to reply, so I trust that on this Amendment he will give us a better explanation than we have had so far. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, this is more than a drafting Amendment; it incorporates within it Amendments made previously to the English provisions, with the result that we have a new subsection to the Scottish application subsection, which repeats verbatim subsection (5) of the Clause.
Surely we have not drifted into the position where we have to legislate for Scotland by saying something taking fourteen lines twice? That is what we are doing here. We do not even say in this subsection that subsection (5) shall not apply to Scotland. I should have thought that if we were to put in this new subsection we should at least have said at the commencement that subsection (5) of the Section shall not apply to Scotland or, that these words shall be substituted for that subsection.

Mr. Ross: I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is additional. This is for the benefit of the great Scottish land superior.

Mr. Willis: I appreciate that too. My point is, why should we do that? Is it that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is preparing the way for the Scottish Bill that is to be introduced subsequently? because we understand that there is to be a Scottish version.

Mr. Ross: A re-write.

Mr. Willis: If the Bill is to be rewritten in the way these Amendments are re-written, instead of taking over 100 pages, the Bill will take over 200 pages.

Mr. Ross: Printed by Macmillan & Co. and suitably illustrated.

Mr. Willis: What is the purpose of it? Perhaps the learned Solicitor-General for Scotland will now tell us?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If I may deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), I think the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) really answered him, because subsection (5) deals with cases of compensation and the Amendment with which we are now dealing deals with consideration. The hon. Member will remember from the Committee stage, and this I am afraid goes back to the 1845 Act, that the feuer gets the compensation and the superior gets the consideration, and, indeed, the additional consideration.
Certain criticisms were made in the Committee stage, if I remember rightly, because this Amendment to paragraph (d), which we are replacing, proceeded by cross reference. We thought it right to rewrite the paragraph, so that the new paragraph (d) is self-contained and can now be understood at a glance both by lawyer and layman.
In regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock concerning persons claiming under him accordingly, it is safeguarded by the proviso, by the initial "if", so to speak. It must have vested in some other person, to begin with, and thereupon the person claiming under the original person is the person who is in right and title to what I might call the original estate. It is as clear as we can make it, both in England and Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 18.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVI SIONS AS TO COMPENSATION UNDER s. 17.)

Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 25, line 6, leave out from "mentioned" to end of line 15.

In line 25, after "other" insert "act or".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Lords Amendment: In page 25, line 46, leave out from "section" to "they" in page 26, line 1, and insert:
cease to be entitled to an interest in the whole or part of the land comprised in the acquisition or sale, without remaining or becoming entitled to a freehold interest in, or tenancy of, that land or that part thereof, as the case may be".

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to get over a difficulty over the word "dispose", which is given a wide meaning in Clause 46 of the Bill. At present, under Clause 18, where a person has given to the acquiring authority an address for service and within five years that acquiring authority disposes of any of the land, it is obliged to notify the local planning authority so as to ensure that it becomes aware of any planning permission affecting the land which may give rise to the right to claim additional compensation. The word "dispose" has a very wide meaning, and would lead to unnecessary work.
For example, if, let us say, the British Transport Commission granted an easement to the Post Office for a telegraph line, that would be caught by the words of the Bill as it stands, but, so long as the acquiring authority retains an interest in the land, it can, by its own arrangements, ensure that it is made aware of the grant of any planning permission. It should only be necessary to bring in the local authority planning authority where the acquiring authority ceased to hold any interest at all.
The effect of this Amendment, therefore, is to provide that the obligations to notify the planning authority should arise only where it no longer holds a freehold interest or a tenancy in the land. This will, in fact, simplify the operation of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 25. after "1947" insert:
and for any reference to a freehold interest in any land there shall be substituted a reference to the dominium utile in that land".

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is simple and consequential on the last Amendment. It substitutes the Scottish version of freehold interest. The House will have become familiar during the early stages of the Bill with the phrase dominium utile.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 36, at end insert:
(b) for any reference to compensation under the last preceding section, of a reference to additional consideration as aforesaid, and

(c) for any reference to subsection (5) of the last preceding section of a reference to paragraph (d) of subsection (9) of that section.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Paragraph (b) refers to a matter that I mentioned a few minutes ago. It deals with additional consideration as well as compensation—a purely technical matter. Paragraph (c) is consequential to the Amendment in page 24, line 29.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B".—(EXTENSION OF SS. 17 AND 18 TO PLANNING PERMISSION WHERE NO PLANNING DECISION MADE.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert:
B.—(1) The provisions of sections seventeen and eighteen of this Act (except subsection (2) of the said section eighteen) shall have effect in relation to any planning permission which, in accordance with any direction or provision given or made by or under an enactment, is deemed to be granted for any development, as if a planning decision granting that permission had been made at the time when, in accordance with the enactment in question, the permission is deemed to be granted:
Provided that, in the case of a direction given under an enactment which contains no provision as to the time when the permission is deemed to be granted, those provisions shall have effect as if such a planning decision had been made at the time when the direction is given.
(2) The provisions of sections seventeen and eighteen of this Act (except subsection (2) of the said section eighteen) shall have effect in relation to any planning permission which is granted for any development by virtue of a development order, as if—

(a) a planning decision granting that permission had been made at the time of the occurrence of the event in consequence of which (in accordance with the provisions of the order) the development is deemed to be sanctioned by a government department, or
(b) in a case not falling within the preceding paragraph, such a planning decision had been made at the time when the development is initiated.

(3) Where the provisions of section seventeen of this Act have effect as applied by subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, then if—

(a) before the time of the planning decision which is to be assumed in accordance with those provisions as so applied, a person who (in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act as so applied) is entitled to give an address for service under that section has given such an address to the acquiring authority, and
(b) the development is proposed to be carried out by the acquiring authority, or, if it is proposed to be carried out by a person other than the acquiring authority, notice of that proposal is given to the acquiring authority by the person proposing to carry out the development.

it shall (subject to the next following subsection) be the duty of the acquiring authority to give notice of that proposal in the prescribed form to the first-mentioned person at the address given by him to the authority.
(4) An acquiring authority shall not be required by virtue of the last preceding subsection to give notice of proposed development to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act at a time after an address for service has been

given to them by such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of the said subsection (1), if they have reasonable grounds for believing that the former person is dead or that any other act or event has occurred such as is mentioned in subsection (5) of section seventeen of this Act.
(5) Any reference in this section to subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act shall include a reference to that subsection as extended by subsection (7) of that section and any reference in this section to subsection (5) of section seventeen of this Act shall accordingly include a reference to paragraph (d) of subsection (9) of the said section eighteen.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: There are one or two points about the new Clause upon which I should like to comment. The Minister offered us an exhaustive analysis of the Clause. It would have been helpful if he had told us something more about what is in it.
Before you were in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we were discussing the question of a misprint in the last line of the Clause, line 61. It was explained to us that the misprint was due to the House and not to the Government. That is something that we can all understand and accept. What I feel about it is that it is intolerable and indicative of what the Government have been doing with a casual disregard not only of hon. Members and their work but of the servants of the House in checking this enormously complicated volume for it to be printed. One of two things happened. Either no effort whatever was made to check that the print was right or it was know that it was wrong but no effort was made to tell anyone that there was a misprint.
This is not a fiddling point. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that anyone who tries to grasp what the volume means finds it difficult enough in all con science to get through it when it means what it says, but in this case having got to the sixtieth line of the new Clause we find a reference to something that does not exist, and this means that it takes a terrific amount of time, research and guesswork to find out what is meant. It means that hon. Members who have been trying to understand what all these Amendments are about not only have


difficulty in understanding what the new Clause means but have been prevented by the duration of their labours from finding out what the rest of the Lords Amendments mean because they never got to them, being so busy scratching their heads to find out what this means.
It is very difficult to understand why the Government, if they knew there was a misprint—as they moved the Amendment, presumably they knew there was a misprint—did not make some effort to tell hon. Members. It is characteristic of the cavalier way they are treating the House that they produce without any apology or explanation this portentous document which has to be discussed at short notice. They have rushed it through and, therefore, there has been no adequate time to consider it, and they have not even bothered to save hon. Members unnecessary labours in trying to grasp what it means.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) considers—he is a very persuasive authority with me, and I am sure he is with all other hon. Members—that the new Clause does not greatly add to the extent of the Bill and is a reasonable one. I am glad to know that. As you, Mr. Speaker, told us, this is a matter of Privilege and therefore it must mean some extra expenditure, contingently or certainly—I would not know.
This is one of those marginal cases of which the Minister is so fond. He did not trouble to tell us how much was involved. He is asking the House to accept an Amendment from another place imposing a charge on the public, but he does not tell us whether it is 2¼d. or £100,000. The House is entitled to know what is involved, if anything. We can be certain that there will be at least one extra charge on public funds and that is the cost of printing. It comes about from the series of provisions in this whole beautiful concept, to which the Minister is devoted, of giving the owners of land a rake-off on land which they have already sold.
10.30 p.m.
In the original Bill, Clause 17 provided:
Additional compensation for new planning permission in respect of land acquired.

Clause 18 referred to:
Supplementary provisions as to compensation under section 17.
In other words, that was a supplementary provision to compensation under additional provisions. To that we are being asked to add:
Extension of sections 17 and 18 to planning permission where no planning decision made.
We now have these three enormous Clauses which are extremely difficult to follow and which are all closely interrelated.
The net effect is that Clause 17 has 173 lines and Clause 18 has 93 lines. If we drop eight lines which the Government have proposed to omit and set off odd words which have been dropped against odd words which have been added, the net effect of that added to the Lords Clause is a total of 327 lines from which we have to deduct eight lines to leave a net total of 319 lines dealing with this question in three Clauses.
Somebody has to try to grapple with and understand that. We are here apparently light-heartedly passing this new Clause which will add to the difficulties which are already big enough and about which we have already protested. This is a most irresponsible way in which to treat the public, officers of local authorities and private practitioners who have to advise members of the public and to throw at them what is obviously ill-digested legislation.
The fact that it is ill-digested legislation was shown even in Standing Committee when we were trying to persuade the Minister to simplify the Bill and to explain some of its provisions. The right hon. Gentleman took very much the same attitude which he is now taking, saying, "Take it or leave it". The result of that has been a drastic re-writing of the Bill in another place. That phrase is always coming up—"This is merely a re-writing of a provision".
I suggest that it is unfair to the House that without adequate consideration we should be asked to add to the Bill something which, if it is not necessary, will only complicate the Bill and which, if it is necessary, should be properly explained.
I conclude as I began, by asking for some information about the financial implications of the Clause for both the


Treasury and local authorities. It has not been sufficiently brought to the attention of the House that in many Amendments—this in particular and in a worse example later—we are imposing a charge on the public at this late hour in this way at this late stage of the Bill. They are charges which were not imposed in the earlier draft of the Bill. If the Minister says that there is very little involved, or, as he said earlier, that it is marginal, will he say precisely what the effect of new Clause (B) is in financial terms?

Mr. Sparks: The title of the proposed new Clause is:
Extension of ss. 17 and 18 to planning permission where no planning decision made.
As I understand the work of local planning authorities, one cannot have planning permission without a decision being made. Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to an assumed planning permission? If he is, I can understand that. Planning permission is permission to the person who is making the application, but before the permission is granted a planning decision has to be arrived at by the planning authority.
The planning authority cannot give planning permission without arriving at a decision, so this is confusing in that sense, but I think that what the right hon. Gentleman may be aiming at is an assumed planning permission because a local authority may wish to acquire a piece of land where it is not necessary to obtain planning permission itself because no specific use is designated in the development plan and then, for the purposes of compensation, an assumed planning permission has to be obtained. I can understand that, because it is upon the assumed planning permission that the compensation is paid.
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that this Clause was concerned mainly with the question of general development orders, granted by Government Departments, which permitted development and carried with them planning permission in certain areas. Was the right hon. Gentleman referring to such general development orders as were granted before the local authority desired to acquire the land, or was he referring to general development orders which arise after the local authority has acquired the land, because there is a

distinction between the two situations. If the general development order were granted before the local authority acquired the land, the basis of compensation to be paid by the owner would have regard to that general development order and the use to which it designated the land. It would probably be on that basis that the compensation would be paid to the owner of the land.
If the general development order is not issued until after the local authority has acquired the land, it may well give a higher value to the land than that which the local authority paid for its acquisition. Where a general development order carried a lower development value the local authority would have to stand the loss, but where it carried a higher value the local authority would have to pay the additional compensation. The general development order may be made after the local authority has acquired the land, but before the expiry of five years the authority may wish to put the land to a use other than that which it originally intended. What is the situation from the point of view of compensation?
This is a very complicated Clause. Some of us are trying to understand what it means. Even if hon. Members opposite are not concerned, we want to know what it means. I re-emphasise that the title of the Clause is rather confusing and misleading, because we cannot have a planning permission without a planning decision. If the Minister can tell us whether it refers to an assumed planning permission it would clear the air as to the intentions of the Clause and its effect on local authorities who want to change the use from the first purpose to a second purpose.
The Clause may be designed not for local authority acquisition. Other bodies will require to purchase land for their own purposes. If the Clause applies to all authorities, other than local authorities, who want to acquire land, I can understand it, but if it is designed to cover local authority acquisition of land I submit that it creates an added confusion as to the precise responsibilities and liabilities which local authorities will have to undertake in consequence of it.
The right hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the Clause earlier


on, and it would be helpful if he could give the House a little more information as to the applicability of the Clause to local authority acquisition in relation to the general development orders, and also tell us whether it relates to authorities other than local authorities who require to acquire land under general development orders.

Mr. Gibson: I had hoped not to have to rise in this debate. I held back earlier on because I thought the Minister would reply to the point made very clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl)—much more clearly than I did in our earlier discussion. The point I raised then comes up again here. The new Clause is headed, "Extension of ss. 17 and 18 to planning permission where no planning decision made." When we turn to those Clauses we find that they both deal with additional compensation.
I cannot believe that the new Clause was put in without anybody working out a rough idea what it will cost local authorities. I would remind the Minister again that on the original Bill we were given a Financial Memorandum, which showed that as the Bill was then written the extra cost on the funds of local authorities would be about £8½ million per annum.
10.45 p.m.
I remember during the Committee discussions quoting a memorandum which showed that as far as the London County Council was concerned it was going to cost it £1 million per annum extra. The Bill has been considerably altered since then. It was altered in Committee. These additional compensation payments were put into the Bill during the weary three months that we spent discussing the Bill upstairs.

Mr. Ross: Not weary.

Mr. Gibson: They were weary to some of us especially when we got to dominium utile, and even now we do not know exactly what it means.
The Bill has come back from the other House with a proposed new Clause giving additional compensation to someone in certain circumstances, and the House is being asked to accept it as a drafting point, as something which more adequately expresses what the Committee

wanted. It seems to me that what is proposed is a new and additional point.
As I said earlier, it is an endeavour to make sure that even more people can dip their hands into the coffers of the local authorities if they happen to have land which the authorities want. I object to the House being asked to adopt the Clause without adequate discussion and without having the opportunity of examining it such as we would have had in Committee. We are being asked to accept it without being given any estimate by the Government of what it may cost local authorities when the Bill becomes an Act, if it ever does.
It seems to me that this is treating the House with contempt and is an abuse of Parliamentary procedure. I hope that the Minister will now be able to obtain information, if he has not already got it, as to what this Clause can mean in the shape of additional cost to the local ratepayers and that he will tell the House and the country so that we may have a clear appreciation of how these masses of Amendments which have come from the Lords will affect the people of this country.

Mr. H. Brooke: If I may speak again with the leave of the House, I should like to say that the hon. Member for Clap-ham (Mr. Gibson) does me an injustice. I never suggested that it was a mere drafting point. I explained it at the outset in terms which enabled the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to ask what the new Clause did, and I can hardly improve on his description of it.
Let me try again. This new Clause extends the provision already in the Bill to two cases where planning permission is given though no planning decision is taken. I think that is what the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) did not quite appreciate. When a development order is made, nobody gives planning permission, nobody takes a planning decision. The development order is made and that automatically gives certain planning permissions.
As I say, the Clause extends the Bill as it stands to planning permissions which are given by a development order. The hon. Member for Clapham, with his extensive local government knowledge, must surely know that the likelihood of that happening in the future is very


small compared with the whole agglomeration of planning permissions which are given by the ordinary procedure. That is why nobody can fix the figure of the prospective cost of this Clause.
The other reason is that it is all in the future. None of us can foresee what development orders may be made or, indeed, what planning permissions may be deemed to be granted. Nevertheless, the fact is that this is completing the precedure in Clauses 17 and 18 by including certain other cases, rare in comparison with those covered by the Clauses. But if we did not do that, there would be an anomalous inconsistency between them. I am, therefore, entitled to say that the financial effect of this Clause is marginal.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) asked for a further explanation about the new Clause. I had offered to give one and he took up that offer. Subsection (1) deals with the cases in which planning permission is deemed to be granted. As the hon. Gentleman knows, permission may be deemed to be granted when a Minister who is authorising development under some Act of Parliament or other may direct that planning permission for such development may be deemed to be granted.
Another example is the case of planning development by a local authority. I think that this arises only in England and Wales. Permission is deemed to have been granted when the local authority resolves to carry it out, and this subsection says that the time of the planning decision in such cases is the date of the direction or resolution

Mr. MacColl: As it is now to apply, as I understand, where there has been Ministerial direction to the authority, does not that widen the scope of the Bill which has been based on the principle that the planning authority has changed its mind? The argument for Clause 17 is that the person who has changed his mind is the person who benefits by the change of development. If it is a Ministerial development, why should the wretched local authority have to pay more compensation as a kind of fine to the owner of the land?

Mr. Brooke: That raises the general question.

Mr. MacColl: No, this is new.

Mr. Brooke: There is no doubt that when a new planning permission attaches to the land, the value of the land may further be enhanced and an obligation to pay additional compensation may accrue.
Subsection (2) deals with permission automatically granted when Government sanction is given and the date of the sanction is taken as the date of the planning decision. Paragraph (b) covers the other case where no specific sanction is necessary. Under subsection (3) an obligation to notify a third party will arise only where development is proposed to be carried out by the acquiring authority or it has been notified by the person proposing to carry out the development, because otherwise it might not know and might not be in a position to fulfil the obligation. The remaining subsections of the new Clause correspond with similar subsections in Clause 18.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Widnes was puzzled about the misprint, for which I explained that the Government are not responsible. When he found that there was no subsection (9) in Clause 18 I should have thought it possible that he might have guessed that the reference to the subsection was a mistake for Clause 17. There is a subsection (9, d) in Clause 17. I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have been under any misconception. I understand that it is not the duty of the Government to move Amendments where there is a misprint in the version of the Lords Amendments laid before Parliament by the House authorities.

Mr. Willis: As I read the new Clause, subsection (5) relates purely to Scotland. Subsection (5) is the Scottish application of the new Clause. Why could not this new Clause be treated as the other Clauses having a Scottish application have been treated? Why could we not be told at the commencement of the subsection, as we are told in other Scottish application subsections—
In the application of this section to Scotland, any reference in this section to subsection (1) of section eighteen
and so forth?
Once again, it seems that the Scottish Office has had little or no consideration


for the people who will have to make the Bill work. On the one hand, people can go through the Bill and be guided, at the end of the various Clauses, by a subsection commencing,
In the application of this section to Scotland …
but in this new Clause, one has to read right through the thing and refer back to Clauses 17 and 18 to see what the particular subsections are to which reference is made, and then, having done that, one discovers that they refer to Scotland. That is a shocking way to treat Scottish legislation.
The Solicitor-General could have done better than that. Even today, he could have introduced a manuscript Amendment to put it right.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Solicitor-General for Scotland indicated dissent.

Mr. Willis: The Solicitor-General shakes his head. After listening to him, I am not surprised at his defeatist attitude. He does not seem to think that he can do anything. I am bound to say that we on this side of the House would agree with that. But that is no reason why he should not, at least, try. After all, there are people who will have to try to understand the Bill in Scotland. Many people will have to try to make it work. I do not like repeating myself, but it ought to be said again that the job of the House is not to make things difficult to understand, but to enable the people who are affected by the legislation we pass to understand it. That is our job, not to make it more difficult. Why have we this difference in this new Clause?
I ask that question, too, because I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Minister say, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), that there were certain differences in relation to Scotland as regards subsection (1). When speaking about permission being deemed to have been granted, I think he said that this applied to England and Wales. He did not seem to know whether it applied to Scotland or not. Will the Solicitor-General tell us what the position is, and why that has not been made clear in the Clause? It seems to me that the Scottish application is very obscure, and we ought to be told by the learned Solicitor-General why it is so obscure.

Mr. Ross: I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). It was singularly ungracious of the Minister, in reply, to refer to the mistake which had been made. It certainly was not made by anyone on this side, but it misled us and it obviously misled him. Without correction of the mistake, it would seem very difficult to trace any reference to Scotland in this new Clause at all. That is probably what misled the right hon. Gentleman. In discussing subsection (1), he definitely said that it did not refer to Scotland. With all respect to his superior knowledge and position, he did say that.
11.0 p.m.
It certainly does refer to Scotland, but on superficial reading it would be very difficult to appreciate that it did so. We have really no direct Scottish application here at all and, of course, it is little wonder that the Scottish Office did not realise that it did refer to Scotland because the only direct reference is to
… subsection (9) of the said section eighteen
That should read "section seventeen"—about which we are told we should have known.
The fact is that when we try to track down these Amendments in order to apply them to the original Bill we get into an unholy mess before arriving at the truth. And if the Minister is so ungracious about this mistake that he has made, is there no responsibility at all on the Government to check for accuracy that which they lay upon the Table? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in this respect our complaints do not arise from irritation or pique.
I can further assure him that there is another of these mistakes still to come—a mistake that cost me about one and a half hours, trying to make sense of it, and then I realised that no sense could be made of it. I suppose that that, too, will be blamed on the poor printer. As far as I know, the Government have not discovered that mistake yet but, when they do, the Minister will no doubt apologise and say that it has been brought to his attention. If he does not read the papers that are placed before him, we have to, and it is very difficult to get into this kind of position. I do


not know how many more minutes we have to find this one out, but no doubt we will be told that it was the poor printer, that we should have known better, and so on.
All this is less than fair when we are dealing with a series of complicated Amendments. To have these misprints and wrong figures inevitably leads to additional and frustrating work for hon. Members. I sincerely hope that we shall have from the Solicitor-General for Scotland an adequate explanation that the new Clause does apply to Scotland and that the mistake is one that should never have happened, certainly to him or to anyone representing the Scottish Front Bench, because this, again, refers to our learned superiors in Scotland, the people who get this additional and further consideration.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I really do not think that there is any great difficulty with regard to subsection (5) of the new Clause. It expressly states:
Any reference in this section to subsection (1) of section eighteen of this Act shall include a reference to that subsection as extended by subsection (7) of that section …
Subsection (7) refers exclusively to Scotland. Therefore, we have not to look very far, or spend one and a half hours on that. I am sorry, indeed, about the time it has taken the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to find out the error—it does not seem to have improved his temper tonight—but we will wait for the other one, when, perhaps, we shall find that it is not so real as he thinks.
The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my right hon. Friend. I certainly did not hear my right hon. Gentleman say—and I am quite sure that he did not say—that this new Clause does not apply to Scotland. What he did was to give an example that referred exclusively to England and Wales. I heard him give, as an example of deemed permission, development by a local planning authority in England and Wales for which permission is deemed to have been granted when the authority resolved to carry out the development, and he said that that related only to England and Wales. That is so, but that is only one example. There are plenty of examples, covered both by subsection (1) and by subsection (2), which relate to Scotland.
As the hon. Member will know, the procedure in that case is that where there is a resolution of an authority, that resolution has to be notified to the Secretary of State and it is then open to the Secretary of State to confirm, refuse or modify it. That, however, was merely the example given by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Willis: Is it a question of drafting?

Mr. Macpherson: It is not a question of drafting. The mere fact that the Clause does not say that it does not apply to Scotland makes it quite clear that it does apply to Scotland.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Clause 21.—(EXERCISE OF POWERS OF APPROPRIATION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 23, after "Act" insert:
by an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: We now come to Part II of the Bill, which is, in general, considerably less controversial, if controversial at all. It relates to the relaxation of Ministerial control. Without in any way wishing to suggest that we should omit any proper or necessary discussion, as far as I can see there is no controversial matter in this Part of the Bill. I am sure that we can rely upon the Minister and his hon. Friend to indicate shortly to us if any material point is involved.
The following Part of the Bill is Part III, relating to the recommendations of the Franks Committee, to which much the same observations apply. After that, we come to some more controversial matter, partly, but not entirely, in connection with what was Part IV and is proposed to be Part IV and Part V.

Mr. Bevins: I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said. It is true that we now come to two groups of


Amendments to Part II of the Bill, the first relating to purchases by agreement and the removal of many Ministerial controls in those cases and the second having the effect of tidying up certain provisions on the relaxation of controls over the disposal of land. As far as I know, there are certainly no large bones of contention in these Amendments and I should not have thought it necessary for the House to take up time on them.

Mr. MacColl: I should like to ask whether what has been said covers new Clause "C" and whether it ought to be called. I am not clear what these exchanges involve.

Mr. Mitchison: I would have liked to say something about new Clause "C" when we come to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I suggest that the Amendments be put en bloc until we reach new Clause "C", which can be put separately.

Mr. Brooke: I shall be very pleased indeed to give a short explanation of the new Clause "C" when we reach it, and I will willingly give an explanation of any Lords Amendment between this and that new Clause should I be asked for it.

Mr. Mitchison: By leave of the House to speak again on this, I would say that I think that we must rely on the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to us shortly where there is any point of substance or even a small bone of contention as distinct from a big bone of contention.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "C".—(APPROPRIATION OF LAND BY PARISH COUNCILS AND PARISH MEETINGS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 37, line 37, at end insert:
C.—(1) Any land belonging to a parish council which is not required for the purposes for which it was acquired or has since been appropriated may, subject to the following provisions of this section, be appropriated by the council for any other purpose approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the parish meeting.
(2) In the case of a rural parish not having a separate parish council, any land belonging to the parish meeting which is not required

for the purposes for which it was acquired or has since been appropriated may, subject to the following provisions of this section be appropriated by the parish meeting for any other purpose approved by the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
(3) A parish council or parish meeting shall not create or permit any nuisance on land appropriated by them under this section.
(4) The appropriation of land by a parish council or parish meeting under this section shall be without prejudice to any covenant or restriction affecting the use of the land in their hands.
(5) In the case of an appropriation under this section of land acquired under any enactment or order incorporating the Lands Clauses Acts, any work executed on the land after the appropriation has been effected shall, for the purposes of section sixty-eight of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, be deemed to have been authorised by the enactment or order under which the land was acquired.
(6) Where, by virtue of any enactment other than this section, a parish council have power, with or without the consent of a Minister, or may be authorised, to appropriate land for any purpose, the power conferred by subsection (1) of this section shall not be exercisable by the council for that purpose in relation to that land.
(7) The power conferred by subsection (2) of this section shall not be exercisable by a parish meeting in relation to any land for any purpose for which the parish meeting are or could be empowered (subject to the requisite consents) to appropriate that land under section twenty-two of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, or for which they may be authorised to appropriate that land under section forty-two of the Act of 1947.
(8) Subsections (1) and (2) of section twenty-two of this Act shall apply in relation to an appropriation of land by virtue of this section, as if parish councils and parish meetings were authorities to whom this Part of this Act applies.
(9) This section shall not apply to Scotland.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a new Clause which gives to parish councils, and to parish meetings where there is no parish council, a general power to appropriate land, which is not required for the purpose for which it is already acquired or appropriated, for another purpose approved by the Minister and approved by the parish meeting. The Clause, as the House will note, follows the pattern of the general power in Section 163 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which is available to local authorities other than parish councils. Parish councils have got some limited powers of appropriation at present, but


they are sometimes embarrassed by the absence of a general power.
I should like the House to know that this new Clause was moved into the Bill in response to a request from the National Association of Parish Councils. I am sure, with the feeling on both sides of the House towards parish councils, that though the House may wish to debate it, it will be willing in the end to agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: As I understand it, this involves the disposal of land and appropriation of land by parish councils to a use different from the use for which the land was originally acquired. The acquiring authority in most cases will have been the county council, one would conceive. We have land acquired by the county council, or one of the acquiring authorities for certain purposes, no doubt in association with the parish council, and the purpose of this provision is to deal with the case where it is desired to appropriate land for a different use. It is surely of some interest to the House to know in those circumstances whether the county councils are in agreement with the extended power of parish councils. Would the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the county councils, or some body speaking generally on their behalf, have given approval to this change?

Mr. Brooke: I am certainly not aware of any opposition which has been raised to this Clause. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that the power to appropriate given by this Clause is subject to the approval of the Minister. So there is Ministerial control.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that most of us in the House are likely to agree with the general purpose of this Clause and I think that on both sides of the House we have considerable sympathy with what I may call, I hope politely, the aspirations of parish councils and parish meetings expressed through their National Association, a body which has done a very great deal to help individual parish councils, but I must say that I really do not know why this Clause is here. If it had been intended to give additional powers to parish councils, really it ought to have been done in the course of the passage of the Bill through this House.
11.15 p.m.
Moreover, we are being asked to do something which has only the most slender connection with town and country planning. As the right hon. Gentleman indicated, we are being asked to amend provisions relating to local government and occurring in local government Acts. It is quite wrong, however meritorious the purpose may be, that the Government, in another place, should slip in a Clause relating to another matter and bring it back here and give us no more opportunity for detailed consideration than one can have in the somewhat summary procedure appropriate to Lords Amendments.
I do not think that it is a reason for dividing against the Clause, but it is a reason for registering a protest against it. It does not do, at the end of a Parliamentary Session, for the Government to slip into a Bill something quite different and bring it here at a quarter past eleven, which is all the opportunity we have of considering it. It is we and not another place who represent the parish councils, the parish meetings, and the people in them, and it is not right that this kind of provision should be brought forward in this way. If, without wasting time on other contentious Measures, the Government had used their time to bring this provision forward earlier, it would not have met much opposition. It would have gone through quite quickly. It would have had proper consideration and would have been dealt with on proper lines.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "D".—(PROTECTION OF PERSONS DERIVING TITLE UNDER TRANSACTIONS REQUIRING CONSENT.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert:
D.—(1) Where after the commencement of this Act an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies purport to acquire, appropriate or dispose of land under an enactment whereby power to acquire, appropriate or dispose of land is conferred on that authority, or on a class of authorities to whom this Part of this Act applies, then—

(a) in favour of any person claiming under the authority, the acquisition, appropriation or disposal so purporting to be made shall not be invalid by reason that any consent of a Minister which (whether by virtue of this Part of this Act or otherwise) is required thereto has not been given, and


(b) a person dealing with the authority, or with a person claiming under the authority, shall not be concerned to see or inquire whether any such consent has been given.

(2) In relation to Scotland the preceding subsection shall have effect in substitution for the provisions of subsection (2) of section one hundred and sixty-eight of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, in so far as those provisions relate to the consent of a Minister, but without prejudice to the operation of those provisions in cases to which the preceding subsection does not apply.

Mr. Bevins: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It will be within the recollection of several hon. Members on both sides of the House that at an earlier stage of our deliberations my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) and other hon. Members raised the question of protection for people who purchase land from a local authority against the possibility that the local authority itself had failed to obtain the Minister's consent in circumstances where ministerial consent was required.
The Clause says that where a local authority to which Part II of the Bill applies fails to get any Ministerial consent required, the new Clause will validate the transaction so far as the purchaser is concerned and serve to protect the purchaser's successors in title. I think that it meets the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in Committee.

Mr. MacColl: Perhaps the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) can tell us whether this was the real case which was recently discussed in the courts where, if I understood it rightly, somebody who had a lease under the local authority applied for an extension of it and the local authority pleaded that it had not had the consent.
One could think of a great many cases where it would be unjust and wrong for a local authority to be in the position of being able to plead its own mistake in order to get out of a contractual responsibility into which it had entered with somebody, leading somebody to derive a title from it. But there may be cases—this is what is worrying me—where a considerable injustice has been done to the public, who, after all, are the people financially concerned. Ministerial consent

has been cut down a lot in these transactions in the Bill, and there would be no point in amending it at all if it was not that in certan types of cases in the interests of the public and in the interests of the ratepayers it is desirable that a local authority should get Ministerial permission. Although one may condemn it if it has failed to get it, there may be cases in which it would be wrong to say that the public good should suffer and that the interests of the person who is acquiring from the authority are paramount over those of the public. I suppose that in most cases it might complicate things a little.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Crosby would help us on this, because he is very experienced in these matters. It would normally be possible, would it not, for a purchaser to inquire from the local authority whether consent had been obtained in a case where it was necessary before completing a transaction? It would be part of the normal process, would it not, in a conveyancing transaction? I do not know. In the absence of any other legal advice from the benches opposite, the hon. Member for Crosby might tell us, for it would be helpful to know.
I am just as concerned when we are looking at the glaring case of whether a right would require that a person acquiring in this way should not be affected by a mistake made by a local authority, but there are other cases where Ministerial consent is a protection to the public against abuse, and where that is so I am not at all sure that it is necessarily desirable that the interests of the public should be subordinated to those of people who are acquiring the land.

Mr. Mitchison: I have been trying to discover what valuable or useless contribution I may have made to this matter in the course of twenty-five days' proceedings in Committee, but I must confess that for the moment I have been unable to trace it.
The Clause raises a rather difficult question. It no doubt protects the purchaser, but it also enables the local authority with impunity to disregard certain limitations on its own powers. There is no provision in the Clause—I am not saying there ought to be—for hanging, drawing and quartering the mayor, the


chairman of the council, the town clerk or anybody else, but it is not altogether a good thing that the position should be that if an authority disregards limitations on its powers nothing can be done about the authority and nothing need be done about the purchaser because he is protected by Statute.
I should have thought with my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) that one ought to be careful and not give such a protection to the purchaser as would relieve him of the duty of making some ordinary simple inquiries. After all, if a person is building or altering a house, he or his architect will inquire about the local provisions, byelaws and so on applicable to it, and one would hold an architect negligent if he failed to do so.
I should have thought that in this type of case it was reasonable to put the person buying from the local authority in no better position than he would be if he bought from someone else. I quite agree that if he were buying, for example, from a limited company he would not as a general rule be called upon to inquire whether all the proper formalities had been gone through. This, however, is not quite that type of case, and at this stage I suppose there is nothing we can do about it. At least I hope the Minister and his Department, when considering this sort of question at any time in the future, will remember that in practice one can do nothing to the authority if it is even deliberately careless, while at the same time the purchaser is getting a complete exemption.
I say again to the Minister that I wish this Clause had been discussed in the course of our normal procedure and not brought forward, in this instance, at 11.25 at night.

Mr. Bevins: It is true that if a member of the public is buying from a private individual questions of consent will not arise; certainly not so far as Government Departments are concerned. Although this protection is afforded to purchasers from local authorities, there is nothing in this Clause which absolves a local authority in any way from getting the consent of the Minister. I can imagine what would happen if they did not; the members of the council would be subject to a surcharge.

Mr. Mitchison: Yes, but that does not cover every case. It may be that this sort of transaction is put through carelessly; that the council does not do what it ought to do. There may be no question of surcharge, although something has been disregarded; and it can be disregarded with impunity. A Clause of this kind ought to have very careful consideration before it is brought forward and, if I may make the point again, it ought not to be brought forward in the form of a Lords Amendment at the very last stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PART II.)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the next three Amendments are uncontroversial. If that is so, perhaps I might put them in bulk.

Mr. MacColl: I think that the Amendment in page 38, line 9. is an addition to the Bill. Might we have some explanation of it from the Minister?

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 9, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 16 and insert:
Any reference in this Part of this Act to an enactment whereby a power is conferred on an authority to whom this Part of this Act applies, or on a class of such authorities—

(a) shall be taken to include any enactment whereby the power in question is conferred on local authorities generally, or on a class of local authorities which includes a class of authorities to whom this Part of this Act applies, or is conferred on a class of authorities to whom this Part of this Act applies together with any other class of local authorities, but
(b) shall not be taken to include any enactment whereby (without particular reference to local authorities, or to bodies of any description specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act a power is conferred generally on persons of a description specified in the enactment, notwithstanding that one or more authorities to whom this Part of this Act applies".

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
These Amendments arise from a recent decision of the High Court. Right of appeal under Clause 27 is given, as the Bill stands, to persons aggrieved, but the effect of the High Court decision is that planning authorities are concerned only


when financially affected. That is thought to be too narrow. Other parties are considered to be deserving of the same right, and the sole purpose of these Amendments is to establish that they get that right.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 32.—(PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION.)

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 44, leave out from "for" to first "of" in line 13 and insert:
references to sections fifteen and thirty-five".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. MacColl: This involves considerations of relativity, because it appears to be that this can be examined only if one is proceeding with the speed of light in a direction away from it and backwards in time, because it is proposed in line 44 to leave out from "for" to the first "of" in line 13, which means going backwards. It would be helpful to know precisely what this means.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. MacColl: On a point of order. We might be docile, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but we cannot agree to an Amendment which is completely senseless.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I think that "line 13" must be a misprint.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Line 13 should be line 45.

Mr. Willis: We should have an explanation. Previously the right hon. Gentleman apologised for a printer's error and said that there was no need for a manuscript Amendment. We do not know whether this is a printer's error or a mistake which should be corrected by a manuscript Amendment. What are the Government going to do about it? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain the position.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that it is a printer's error.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause "E".—(ENFORCEMENT OF LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY DEVELOP MENT ORDERS.)

Lords Amendment: In page 50, line 25, at end insert:
E.—(1) Where by a development order (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) permission is granted for any development subject to limitations specified in the order, sections twenty-three and twenty-four of the Act of 1947 (which relate to the enforcement of planning control) shall, subject to the provisions of this section, have effect in relation to any non-compliance with those limitations as they have effect in relation to noncompliance with any conditions subject to which permission is granted for any development.
(2) For the purposes of this section and of the Act of 1947, any provision of a development order (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) whereby permission is granted for the use of land for any purpose on a limited number of days in a period specified in that provision shall (without prejudice to the generality of references to limitations in this section or in that Act) be taken to be a provision granting permission for the use of land for any purpose subject to the limitation that the land shall not be used for any one purpose in pursuance of that permission on more than that number of days in that period.
(3) Where, in the case of any development which has been carried out before the commencement of this Act,—

(a) permission for that development was granted by a development order subject to a limitation (whether by virtue of such a provision as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection or otherwise) and
(b) a notice purporting to be an enforcement notice under section twenty-three of the Act of 1947 has been served before the commencement of this Act, alleging that the development was carried out without planning permission, and the steps required by that notice to be taken have not been taken Before the commencement of this Act,

the service (after the commencement of this Act) of an enforcement notice in respect of non-compliance with that limitation, notwithstanding that it is served more than four years after the date of the alleged failure to comply-therewith, shall not be treated as out of time if the notice is served at any time before the first anniversary of the commencement of this Act.
(4) The validity of a notice purporting to be an enforcement notice under the said section twenty-three (whether served before or after the commencement of this Act) shall not depend on whether any non-compliance


to which the notice relates was a noncompliance with conditions, or with limitations, or with both; and any reference in such a notice to non-compliance with conditions or limitations (whether both expressions are used in the notice or only one of them) shall be construed as a reference to non-compliance with conditions, or with limitations, or both with conditions and limitations, as the case may require.
(5) In the application of this section to Scotland, for references to the Act of 1947 and to sections twenty-three and twenty-four of that Act there shall be substituted references respectively to the Scottish Act of 1947 and sections twenty-one and twenty-two of that Act; and, in subsection (3) for the words 'four years after the date of the alleged failure to comply therewith' there shall be substituted the words 'two years after it has come to the knowledge of the local planning authority that the limitation has not been complied with'.

Read a Second time.

Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 21, to leave out subsection (3).
I think it would be to the convenience of the House if I explained briefly the provisions of the new Clause before T explain the Amendment, because it is difficult to justify leaving out a subsection when the subsection has never been before the House.
The new Clause was put into the Bill at a late stage wholly as a result of a recent decision of the Divisional Court in what is known as the Cater case. The judgment, given on 14th April, is likely to have far-reaching consequences because the court upheld a plea, the effect of which was that where, as in a caravan case, the general development order permits caravans to be on land for 28 days in one year and no longer, the enforcement provisions of the 1947 Act, being defective in one small respect, render it literally impossible to serve a valid enforcement notice to enforce that planning limitation.
The technicality is that in one Section of the 1947 Act we find the words "conditions or limitations" whereas in the enforcement section of that Act there is no mention of limitations.
The 28 days' period was held by the court to be a permission—I am abbreviating the findings of the court. It was held by the court that it was not possible to serve a valid enforcement notice because permission for the development had been given, and the person in question had his caravans on the

land under the 28 days' permission and had not carried out any further development after the end of the 28 days but had simply kept them there. What this wholly unexpected event disclosed was that a limitation such as the caravan limitation for a period of time could not be challenged in this way.
That is a very brief description of the position, but it certainly created a very serious situation for planning authorities and, indeed, for the public generally. In reply to a question put to me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I indicated that the Government were urgently examining the situation that arose to see whether a suitable Amendment could be inserted in the Bill at a late stage in another place.
The purpose of subsection (1) is to make it clear that where permission is granted by a development order subject to limitations the local planning authority may serve an enforcement notice in respect of non-compliance with those limitations in the same way as for non-compliance with any conditions attached to a planning permission, and subsection (2) makes it clear that the limit of 28 days in Class IV of the general development order or any similar limit in a development order is a limitation for this purpose.
Subsection (3), which I have moved to omit from the Lords Amendment, deals with a case where the development has already occurred and the local authority has served an enforcement notice of the kind which the court held to be invalid in the later case, and the period of four years within which a valid enforcement notice should be served has now expired. In another place this subsection was included in the Lords Amendment, and its effect would be that in such a case a further enforcement notice could be served at any time within one year of the commencement of the Bill.
Subsection (4) is a clarifying provision, dealing with the point that where a local planning authority wishes to take enforcement proceedings for non-compliance there might be some doubt whether an alleged contravention was, strictly speaking, a contravention of a condition or of a limitation. The subsection makes it clear that the validity


of an enforcement notice served under Section 23 of the 1947 Act is not to be affected by any such doubt.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the right hon. Gentleman mention subsection (5) before he leaves the matter. I think it means that a period of four years after the failure to comply in England corresponds with a period of two years after the knowledge of the planning authority in Scotland.

Mr. Brooke: That is so. I am always diffident about explaining the Scottish subsections.
After the Amendment was moved into the Bill on Report in another place the Government very carefully examined it and, as a result, came to the conclusion that subsection (3) might put Parliament into a state of appearing to be pursuing vindictively one of Her Majesty's citizens who had recently won a case in the courts and had acquired an existing use right by the effluxion of time because the four-year limit had run out. But this is not a matter which can be settled easily. There is more than one principle which could be applied in a case of this kind.
There may be a handful of other cases besides the Cater case, but there can only be a very few. The only cases which would be affected by what we do with regard to subsection (3) are cases where an enforcement notice has been served but not complied with, and where the notice was of the particular kind which the Cater judgment declared to be invalid, and also where the period of four years since the alleged contravention will have run out by the time the Bill comes into force. The contravention must have occurred in 1955 or earlier, or later in Scotland.
11.45 p.m.
The Government have no specific knowledge of other cases, but there is liable to be a handful of such cases. It is a nicely balanced issue as to what should be the correct course to take. In the particular case which has brought this to light there is no doubt that the person concerned was ignoring and flouting a time limitation in the development order. Nevertheless, he had won his case in the court, he had established his right, and owing to the four-year limitation

that right could not be taken away from him by the local authority serving a new enforcement order.
On balance, and after careful reconsideration, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be wiser and, indeed, more in accordance with the dignity of Parliament to recognise that position and not even to seem to be seeking to reverse the result of a recent case decided in favour of the appellant in the court.
It is on those grounds that, as I say, after very careful reconsideration the Government have decided that it would be right to move this Amendment, as I now do, to leave out subsection (3). The subsequent Scottish Amendment is linked therewith.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he be good enough to answer one question? The Amendment is quite recent. It appears starred on the Notice Paper. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he has given the matter most careful consideration. What consultation has he had with the local authorities in the matter and with what result?

Mr. Brooke: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I would say that the Government have had no consultation with the local authorities on this matter. I quite appreciate that the decision to move the Amendment may be distasteful to the Essex County Council. I regret that. As I say, there may be a handful of other cases, but I think it can be no more than a handful.
I trust that the planning authorities will recognise that there is here a conflict of principle and that one has to try to reach a right balance. After careful reconsideration the Government felt that, on the whole, it would be right not to be seeming to pursue a particular citizen and put him in jeopardy again when he had, in fact, so recently established a right in the courts.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It is not easy at this hour tonight to deal appropriately with the question of amending the law of enforcement notices in the way proposed by this Lords Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to it. The Amendment deals with only one of the large number of defects which have been


found to get in the way of the law of enforcement under Sections 23 and 24 of the 1947 Act.
The House will be aware, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, that time and time again by some technicality after another it has been found by local authorities extraordinarily difficult to draft enforcement notices which are effective for their purpose and to enforce the law in the manner in which Parliament intended that it should be enforced. A really extraordinary amount of time has been taken up in the courts, as hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware, in dealing with questions arising on the law of enforcement. I do not think it would be going too far to say that the machinery set up by Sections 23 and 24 of the 1947 Act has failed in its purpose. It has been disappointing in a great many respects, and for some time there has been a desire on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House that there should be an amendment of the law of enforcement, and changes in the provisions of those Sections.
When some of us were advocating such a change, we were met with the objection that this kind of thing should not be treated piecemeal, that it was quite wrong to take one defect in the provisions of the 1947 Act and try to put that right, because there were so many loopholes and ways round the provisions that a large-scale and wholesale change in the law was needed. In that setting, I think it fair to say that it is discouraging to see what we were warned was undesirable now taking place: because this certainly is piecemeal treatment of the problem. Not only that, it is a treatment arising in a very curious way, because we have now come to one of the Lords Amendments to the Title of the Bill. Therefore, this change is open to criticism not only because it is pricemeal in character, but also because of the pattern in which it arises, and because of the circumstances, it is not at all easy to give the matter adequate treatment and consideration.
I should not agree myself, but on the view that it is right to treat the Cater point piecemeal, I think it may be that this Clause more or less meets the purpose. It is quite wrong that the provision in the general development order

about 28 days, which was intended to deal with the case of temporary use, should be made a technical occasion for effecting much wider and more long-term purposes to Sections 23 and 24 of the 1947 Act. That has been going on in a large number of cases and in the Cater case in particular. It has meant that one enforcement notice after another has been held by the courts to be invalid because the basis of the notice was that the use of the land was being carried on without permission, and it was always possible for the user of the land to point to the general development order and say that he was not doing what he was doing without permission because he had general permission in the development order. It is desirable that that loophole should be stopped up. Probably that good result is effected by this new Clause.
As regards the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, I quite agree with him, and I think it is rather a narrow point. For what it is worth, I am bound to say that my inclination would be to agree with the view he has expressed. It is a narrow point, and it is the sort of matter on which individuals in different parts of the I louse may differ. I can understand the annoyance of the Essex County Council. Somebody has got through the loophole and is clear. The technicality is a fait accompli, and it is rather distressing for the authority concerned.
But, after all, it would be carrying retrospective legislation rather far to make a change in the law which (a) would have the result of capsizing a recent High Court decision, and (b) would have the result of capsizing such a decision in circumstances where as long a statutory period as the four years had expired during which, under the law until now, the right of Mr. Cater to carry out the use of the land, if he had carried it out, would have been effective.
On the rather narrow issue of the Government's Amendment, I should be inclined to take the view which the right hon. Gentleman has said is the Government's view of the reason for the Amendment. As regards the new Clause as a whole, I do not criticise its content, but I do criticise the Government for the manner in which they have brought their recommendation forward, after having discouraged for so long those who desire


to alter the law in this matter of enforcement. After having discouraged and obstructed new legislation for many years, on the ground that it was necessary to deal with the topic as a whole, they have shown in this proposal now that that objection of theirs was ill founded. They have acted in contravention of the arguments which they themselves have presented.

Mr. MacColl: I wish to put a point of view which is somewhat different from that advanced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). It is a very difficult question. One major criticism which must be made of the Minister—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) put this point earlier—is that the delay in putting forward this Amendment to leave out subsection (3) makes it impossible for people who are affected by the Government's decision to make their representations in the constitutional manner to Members who have to consider it.
We could argue one way or another about the Lords Amendments and the place of Lords Amendments in the Bill, but as is well known, when the Government arrange for an Amendment to be moved in another place and it becomes known and recognised that a certain alteration is to be made in the Bill, people can understand what the situation is. If the Government, at the eleventh hour, change their point of view and make an important alteration in what they originally proposed, there is no later stage when the matter can be raised again, and I think that the local authority associations have serious ground for complaint, in that they have been misled and, to some extent, have been led up the garden about it. However, I will not develop that point.
When I first saw this proposal, I was a little more irritated about it than I am now. I realise now that there was a great rush because the decision of the High Court was a very recent one. It should be made quite clear that the Lord Chief Justice said that Mr. Cater's case had no merits and that when he defied the planning authority he did not do so with this technicality in mind at all. That was made quite clear in the judgment. Therefore, we are not dealing with someone

who acted having in mind what the law was and then being faced with a subsequent change in the law.
12 midnight.
When we are dealing with retrospective legislation the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I draw his attention to Clause 40 of the Bill. When it is a question of dragging money out of the Widnes Council and others and shutting them off from access to the courts the right hon. Gentleman is not at all squeamish. He is quite happy then to mulct the local authorities by retrospective legislation. But when it comes to a person whose case, as the Lord Chief Justice says, has no merits, and who gets away with it purely on a technicality, the right hon. Gentleman begins to get very nervous and uncertain—putting the provision in and taking it out, and so on.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering says that two blacks do not make a white, but is this really a black? If the point is that in cases such as Mr. Cater's and similar cases people are to be prosecuted and punished for something done before the law was changed, I would agree that that would be something to which we could not accede. But, as I understand the position, nothing can now be done to enforce the planning decision against Mr. Cater. In other words, the new enforcement notice can never be served on him.
That raises a difficult question, because the one position is as unjust as the other. Why should he be allowed to remain sitting pretty, as it were, on his caravan site while other people have to suffer, merely because the enforcement notice had been served on him and not on them? I recognise the difficulty of the position. Speaking as an individual, I would be very happy to say "Let bygones be bygones. We shall not raise the issue of the previous prosecution—that is settled and done with. But, for the future, if it is possible for the planning authority to enforce the planning decision that it originally made then, in Mr. Cater's case and any other like it, I would say, "Let bygones be bygones. You have had your run and you have your caravans on the site, but from now on you must conform with the planning decision."
I do not know whether or not that could be done under the new Clause as amended, but I must say that I am very unhappy about a position in which the planning authority cannot do anything about what is, in fact, a disregard of the planning position.

Mr. Mitchison: And the local authorities are also very unhappy about that position. I have had a telegram—and I know that one or two other hon. Members have had one, too—from the County Councils Association protesting very strongly against these last-minute Amendments that the Government are now introducing to the Lords Amendments. I have had a similar telegram, not altogether surprisingly, from the Essex County Council. I have been shown letters from two boroughs—Leyton and Nuneaton—and the similarity of their form leads me to the conclusion that the Association of Municipal Corporations may also have views on the situation. But the local authorities have not had any time. These two Government Amendments were put on the Paper yesterday, as appears from the star on them. It is a scandalous way, apart from the merits of the matter, of treating the local authorities since the Cater case came on on 14th April.
The Government have introduced a Clause with retrospective effect in another place and only yesterday, 8th July, did they bring in these two Amendments. I wonder where the Amendments have come from. Who has suggested this? Is it Mr. Cater? Is it some backbencher on the Government side who thinks that retrospective legislation is wrong and dangerous? If so, what are his views about Clause 40 as it first was in the Bill, a Clause which introduced retrospective legislation to penalise local authorities and which said that the law was to be deemed to have been what it was now enacted to be for ever in the past, ever since the Act in question was passed? It was defended, I ask the House to note, on the ground that the local authorities had no real merit.
What merits did Mr. Cater have? The Lord Chief Justice said that
The appellant—
that is, Mr. Cater—
has flagrantly avoided compliance with the intentions of the planning authority and the Minister".

He went on to say that he had raised a technical point. The other member of the court, Mr. Justice Donovan, said in the same way that he felt bound, "and with the like reluctance" which had been expressed at some length by the Lord Chief Justice, to agree.
There was not the least doubt about what the two learned judges thought about the matter. They thought that on a purely technical point, invented, obviously, not by Mr. Cater, but by some ingenious gentleman who had advised him, Mr. Cater had succeeded in getting away with it and that he had, to quote once again the words of the Lord Chief Justice,
flagrantly avoided compliance with the intentions of the planning authority and the Minister".
Such is the Government's view that when local authorities are concerned, the retrospective legislation is embarked upon cheerfully, in the interests of the Treasury in that instance, and the defence is that the local authorities have no merits. When we get a gentleman who has
flagrantly avoided compliance with the intentions of the planning authority and the Minister",
the Minister regards it as a nicely-balanced matter what action he should take.
The right hon. Gentleman ought not to have introduced the Amendment—there was no need for him to do so—without consulting the local authorities. He is supposed to be the Minister of Local Government and this is a matter which, obviously, will affect to an uncertain degree a large number of authorities. Mr. Cater's immunity, after flagrant defiance of this kind and success on a purely technical point, depends upon the period of four years. He is now absolutely immune. Anybody in Mr. Cater's position who has four years or four years and a day will be equally immune. Somebody with three years and 364 days in exactly the same position will not be immune if the local authority pulls its socks up and acts quickly.
There is no question of merit or protecting a man who has established his right, or anything of that sort. If we


are to have retrospective legislation—and we have it in this very Bill—this is exactly the case for it. What happened in the case in question depends on the provisions of the general development order, 1950, in which, there is a class of development which is called
Description of Development … Temporary buildings and uses.
What Mr. Cater got away on was this:
The use of land (other than a building …) for any purpose on not more than 28 days in total in any calendar year, and the erection or placing of moveable structures on the land for the purposes of that use.
That is not confined to caravans. The court had only to decide a case about caravans but made it clear that its decision was going far beyond caravans. The Minister may be right in saying that there may not be many cases of caravans without a four-year period to support them, but what about all the other cases? The position now is that anybody who can claim the benefit of the four-year period will have succeeded in the way appropriate to Mr. Cater in flagrantly avoiding compliance with the intentions of the planning authority and this very difficult Minister—

Mr. H. Brooke: When I said I thought there would be only a handful of cases I was not referring only to caravan cases. I realised there would be cases over a wider field, but those cases would have to comply with the whole of those three conditions which I mentioned to the House.

Mr. Mitchison: That just will not do at all.
The right hon. Gentleman could have found out quite easily if he had taken the necessary steps in time and had consulted the local authorities on a matter which is entirely within their knowledge. I do not say it is deliberate, but this is a most extraordinary piece of discourtesy to the local authorities and an extraordinary disregard of his and our obligations to them. They should have been consulted in a matter of this sort. This is sheer pedantry, so far as I can see, this new Clause brought from another place.
Incidentally, I would share the objection of my hon. and learned Friend the

Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) to the way in which it has been done, the neglect of facing the problem as a whole, the handling of it. When it was brought into the House the Government knew about the other cases. Then, presumably, they thought about it. They must have considered retrospective legislation and must have decided it was justifiable in the circumstances, and then they come along and the day before we have to discuss this they put in an Amendment which is going to irritate and madden all the local authorities in the country. That is no exaggeration. They come here at this hour of the night because of the procedure they have adopted and put it to the House as a very nicely balanced matter and one in which they prefer on no account to offend a gentleman with four years behind him after his flagrant defiance of the local authorities and the Minister.
I am bound to say this is utterly and absolutely indefensible. There are no vested rights in the matter. There is no real substance, no merit, in it at all. All that the man has done is on a purely technical point, to succeed in making the Minister bring in legislation, and in getting off himself in this instance. If he had not got four years behind him, if he had three years and nine months, another notice would cure the whole business. The right hon. Gentleman told us himself.
What nonsense to say there are questions of principle in this. Surely it is the most complete and utter nonsense. Surely it is completely and utterly in defiance of local authority interests, and proper interests, in the matter. I regard it not as avoidance of retrospective legislation but as encouragement to defy the law if one can only find a technical point.
I do not think that that is the right way to treat people who succeed on this ground. Why should Mr. Cater be allowed to stay there? Why? What the whole case turned on in fact was a misstatement in the notice. The notice said he had gone there without permission. He had gone there with permission because of the development order. That was the reason for deciding the case. It is a highly technical reason. Another


form of notice might or might not have served. That was never investigated.
I am not at all certain that even now the right hon. Gentleman has got the right form. I notice that Mr. Justice Donovan recommended an entirely different way of dealing with the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has not adopted it. It has taken up a way of its own. It might have worked. I hope it will. It ought to work. But the reason for the Amendment seems to me to be utterly flimsy.
We are in no position to do anything but submit to the big battalions of the Government whom I see ranged opposite us. If they like to say there is another split in the Labour Party between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill and myself they are certainly at liberty to say so, but I am speaking, I believe, at any rate for the great majority of my hon. Friends when I say that I think the local authorities have been very badly treated, that Mr. Cater has got away with it, and the Minister has been amply foolish.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 54, to leave out from "Act" to end of line 58.

Mr. Mitchison: This is even worse. This is two years from knowledge instead of four years from the Act, and one can get off more easily in Scotland, apparently. No doubt it depends upon the circumstances of the case. I shall not make the same speech again but in this instance the Scottish Office is just as bad as the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Mr. Macpherson: Whatever may be the merits of the case, we have no knowledge of any cases in Scotland. As far as I know, no cases have been decided and there are no cases pending.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

New Clause "F".—(NOTICE REQUIRING PURCHASE OF OWNER-OCCUPIER'S INTEREST.)

Lords Amendment: After Amendment last inserted, insert new Clause "F".

PART OBLIGATION TO PURCHASE INTERESTS OF OWNER-OCCUPIERS AFFECTED BY PLANNING PROPOSALS

F.—(1) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall have effect in relation to land which—

(a) is land designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, or
(b) is land allocated by a development plan for the purposes of any functions of a government department, local authority or statutory undertakers, or of the National Coal Board, or is land defined in such a plan as the site of proposed development for the purposes of any such functions, or
(c) is land indicated in a development plan (otherwise than by being allocated or defined as mentioned in the last preceding paragraph) as land on which a highway is proposed to be constructed or land to be included in a highway as proposed to be improved or altered, or
(d) is land authorised by a special enactment to be compulsorily acquired, or land falling within the limits of deviation within which powers of compulsory acquisition conferred by a special enactment are exercisable, or
(e) is land on or adjacent to the line of a highway proposed to be constructed, improved or altered, as indicated in an order or scheme which has come into operation under the provisions of Part II of the Highways Act, 1959, relating to trunk roads or special roads, being land in relation to which a power of compulsory acquisition conferred by any of the provisions of Part X of that Act may become exercisable, as being land required for purposes of construction, improvement or alteration as indicated in the order or scheme, or
(f) is land shown on plans approved by a resolution of a local highway authority as land comprised in the site of a highway as proposed to be constructed, improved or altered by that authority.

(2) Where the whole or part of a hereditament or agricultural unit is comprised in land of any of the specified descriptions, and a person claims that—

(a) he is entitled to an interest in that hereditament or unit, and
(b) the interest is one which qualifies for protection under this Part of this Act, and
(c) since the relevant date he has made reasonable endeavours to sell that interest, and
(d) he has been unable to sell it except at a price substantially lower than that for which it might reasonably have been expected to


sell if no part of the hereditament or unit were comprised in land of any of the specified descriptions,

he may serve on the appropriate authority a notice in the prescribed form requiring that authority to purchase that interest to the extent specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

(3) The last preceding subsection shall apply in relation to an interest in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit as it applies in relation to an interest in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit:

Provided that this subsection shall not enable any person—

(a) if he is entitled to an interest in the entirety of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make any claim or serve any notice under the last preceding subsection in respect of his interest in part of the hereditament or unit, or
(b) if he is entitled to an interest only in part of a hereditament or agricultural unit, to make or serve any such claim or notice in respect of his interest in less than the entirety of that part.

(4) An interest in the whole or part of a hereditament shall be taken to be an interest qualifying for protection under this Part of this Act if, on the date of service of a notice under this section in respect thereof, either—

(a) the annual value of the hereditament does not exceed the prescribed limit, and the interest in question is the interest of an owner-occupier of the hereditament, or
(b) in a case not falling within the preceding paragraph, the interest in question is the interest of a resident owner-occupier of the hereditament.

(5) An interest in the whole or part of an agricultural unit shall be taken to be an interest qualifying for protection under this Part of this Act it on the date of service of a notice under this section in respect thereof, it is the interest of an owner-occupier of the unit.

(6) In the following provisions of this Part of this Act. 'the claimant', in relation to a notice served under this section, means the person who served that notice, and any reference to the interest of the claimant, in relation to such a notice, is a reference to the interest which the notice requires the appropriate authority to purchase as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section.

(7) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) for any reference to the provisions of Part II of the Highways Act, 1959, relating to trunk roads or special roads, there shall be substituted a reference to the provisions of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, or the Special Roads Act, 1949;
(b) for any reference to any of the provisions of Part X of the said Act of 1959, there shall be substituted a reference to section thirteen of the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, as read with any of the following enactments, that is to say section

four of the Trunk Roads Act, 1936, section five of the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, and sections nine, ten and fourteen of the Special Roads Act, 1949; and
(c) for any reference to a highway there shall be substituted a reference to a road."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 35, leave out "or agricultural unit."
I am sure that the House will be relieved by one consideration. This minor Amendment carries with it all the Amendments on the Order Paper with the exception of two groups. For the convenience of hon. Members who no doubt wish to follow the proceedings with increasing attention, the two groups are as follows: In line 71, leave out "the prescribed limit" and insert "one hundred pounds." In line 76, leave out subsection (5) and the consequential Amendment to new Clause "J," leave out lines 75 to 79.
That is the first group. The second group relates to the new Schedule "A" and consists of the Amendments in line 151, leave out "in respect of a hereditament." In line 154, leave out "hereditament "and insert" land in question "and the Amendment to leave out lines 157 to 164. With these two groups of exceptions, all the other Amendments on the Order Paper follow the one which I have moved.
The point raised by the Amendment is that there was a Clause in the Bill relating to what is commonly called "planning blight," that is, to cases where the planning authority makes plans for the development of an area, or comprehensive plans of that sort, some time in advance and the plans become known. On the basis of compensation as it has hitherto existed, those in the area affected think, rightly or wrongly—it does not matter for these purposes—that they will not get sufficient compensation and do not know what compensation they can get, and that view is shared by other people in the district.
The result is that properties in the area, and particularly houses, are very likely indeed to become unsaleable. Taking the provisions shortly, they amounted in the original Bill to this, that in a case of that sort a resident owner-occupier was entitled to say to the


council "You have got to buy my house" if he could show that he had tried to sell it and either could not do so or could not do so except at a price substantially lower than it would have been if there had been no planning blight.
In that form the Clause went through all our proceedings with general acceptance, and a great many of my hon. Friends from Welsh constituencies were particularly glad of it. We welcomed it in Committee. There was a short discussion on some minor Amendments, but, from our side at any rate, no more was said at that stage.
The right hon. Gentleman was on one or two occasions asked to extend it from resident owner-occupiers to another type of owner-occupiers, people who were not in residences at all but yet owned and occupied some other building in the district. I will refer the House in a moment to what the right hon. Gentleman said, because he produced such convincing reasons against what he is now proposing to do that I should feel at this late hour that it was almost impossible to improve on him, and that—if he will not take the analogy too literally—I definitely prefer Philip sober to what I now see—Philip rather drunk—because Philip has, after all, in this instance added a new part to the Bill instead of the one Clause and a mass of new Clauses that we have now to consider.
What do the new provisions amount to? Without going into them in any detail, they amount to this, that the previous right of the resident owner-occupier in respect of a house is extended to any other owner-occupier on the same conditions with one, and only one, addition, and that is that the rateable value of his property must be not above the prescribed limit. The Government announced in another place that the prescribed limit was to be £250. There is an Amendment tabled about that; I will not refer to it at the moment beyond saying that I think it is a very high prescribed limit.
What I am more concerned with are the merits of the Clause, and I will now do what I said I would do. I think I might begin with the Parliamentary Secretary, for both he and the right hon. Gentleman are involved and each is as bad as the other. On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman said:

It may be wondered why this principle"—
that is, compensation for planning blight—
is not being extended to owners of investment house property or industrial premises. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have given this problem a good deal of thought"—
This—I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not take it amiss—is quite a common phrase of his, and whenever I hear it I wonder what the result of the thought is going to be, because as a rule it is something which hardly merits the amount of wet towels which they have put round their heads—
and they believe that Clause 31"—
that was the Clause in question—
will probably cover about 95 per cent. of the hardship cases which arise. There is no doubt that this hardship falls mainly upon owner-occupiers. Where, however, hardship occurs and the provisions in the Bill do not apply, we are asking local authorities to help by buying ahead of requirements."—
There are provisions in the Bill, so far as I remember.
The local authority associations have indicated to us that they could have dealt with the whole of the problem in this way, provided that loan sanction and any appropriate grants were forthcoming. I should add that we ought not to give the owners of commercial and industrial properties, regardless of hardship, a statutory right to unload on to local authorities at any time they think fit. That would be wrong, and unreasonable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th Nov., 1958; Vol. 595, c. 592.]
That is what the Government have done. That was what the Parliamentary Secretary said, and now let us turn to the Minister himself. Last November, on the Second Reading of this Bill he said,
I now come to the question of planning blight. I am grateful for the approval which both sides of the House have given to these provisions. The statutory right to claim that the local authority shall purchase is limited to owner-occupiers because we believe that they suffer the principal hardship. The owners of property for investment purposes are not under the same compulsion to sell and to realise cash as is the owner-occupier who needs to move elsewhere".
I fully agree. The right hon. Gentleman went on,
I would point out, however—since this has not been fully appreciated either in this debate or outside the House—that there is a change in Government policy which will affect this whole field Outside the statutory provisions local authorities and public authorities


generally will have discretion to purchase in advance other types of property besides the residential owner-occupied property. Hitherto the bias of Government policy has been against their doing that. Loan sanction has been grudgingly given, and Exchequer grants have not been available until the actual development took place ".
Then, leaving out a few words, the Minister went on,
… all that is being reversed, and the Government will in future be encouraging local authorities to meet cases of hardship by purchasing in advance.
Again, leaving out a few words, the Minister said:
I would only ask hon Members"—
as I ask them now,
not to put local authorities in a position where they will have to take over the property of any industrial or commercial firm which chooses its time for unloading upon them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th November. 1958; Vol. 595, c. 693.]
Those are very wise words which met with general approval at the time. But, on 3rd March last, during the Committee stage, the Minister said:
It is extremely difficult to know where the best line should be drawn between a statutory obligation to purchase and a discretionary power. I wish to be frank with the Committee and to say that no point in the preparation of this Bill gave the Government more cause for anxious thought than this definition in Clause 31.
That is, the definition of resident owner-occupier. Later the Minister said:
After a great deal of thought we came to the conclusion that the right course would be to apply a statutory obligation on the public authority to buy blighted property when that was residential property in the personal occupation of the owner.
Then he referred to the 95 per cent. and the 5 per cent. and said:
Secondly, there can be no doubt about the existence of hardship in such cases. An owner-occupier does not suddenly want to sell his house and go away. He does not do that unless he has a good reason.
I heartily agree. The Minister went on:
An owner-occupier does not put his house in the market unless he has a substantial cause for desiring to dispose of it and realise the value. Though it might be assumed that others who were not owner-occupiers also had substantial cause, it would depend on the circumstances of the case with them, whereas in the case of an owner-occupier one could always be sure that there was a cause for his wishing to sell. Thirdly, in the case of the owner-occupier there is no question about good faith. He would not simply want to unload his house on the market.

Here, I would point out, we have the same point again. The Minister went on:
He would not decide that the time was ripe to move and that he might be able to get a good price for the house and take advantage of the provisions of the Clause."—
Hon. Members will recall that they were the same provisions about being able to sell or unable to get a reasonable price. He went on:
He would not decide that the time was ripe to move and that he might be able to get a good price for the house and take advantage of the provisions of the Clause. Other owners—I am thinking particularly of owners of industrial or commercial property—might consider it a good moment to realise the business and to try to get the cash value of the property from a reluctant local authority. On those grounds it seemed to us that the crucial case was that of the owner-occupier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd March, 1959; c. 1150–l.]
12.30 a.m.
He went on for some time, but there was no concession at all to the suggestion which came from his own back benchers that something ought to be done in the case of owner-occupiers. The same reasons, to my mind most convincing reasons, were adduced against doing anything of the sort.
There has now been a great deal of re-drafting made necessary by this extension. To put the matter quite shortly, what has been done is to extend the resident owner-occupier provisions to the owner-occupiers of commercial, industrial or farm property with no safeguard other than the limit of £250 as the rateable value for the whole of the hereditament or agricultural unit in question.
I repeat that I could not improve on the right hon. Gentleman's eloquence and reasons unless, perchance, I were to prefer those of his hon. Friend. For the reasons which he and his hon. Friend gave on all the occasions when the question arose during the Bill's passage through the House, I trust that he and his hon. Friends will now withdraw their very extensive Amendments which this change has necessitated in the House of Lords, and will not ask us to support them.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do with the sense of doom of one whose last train has just gone. Why is


it necessary to have the Amendment? The last new Clause which we were discussing was a case where the Government had to act quickly because the nature of the circumstances made it impossible to insert the Clause at an earlier stage. Although we criticised the way in which it was handled, the House recognised the need for that.
In this case, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, we were told as early as Second Reading that this had already been the subject of anxious and careful thought by the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Scotland. They had spent long hours discussing precisely this point and they had concluded, after balancing the pros and cons, that the right place to draw the line was at the resident owner-occupier.
What happened to change that? What has happened to lead us at this late hour to have to consider it? I do not know. I am not in a position to know. I imagine that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) has had something to do with it, but I do not know. It is a very odd thing that the hon. Member for Crosby can sometimes lift his little finger and have the Government cower in terror, but when it came to compensation for redundancy for new town officials, somehow he did not seem to have that effect. Perhaps he was not so persistent.
If the Government are going as far as this, so as to include the owner-occupier who is not resident, why do they not go further? Why draw the line here? What is the characteristic of this class of persons which makes it necessary that they should be included? Let us take the hypothetical case of the widow who owns a house and lets it to a tenant and where the tenant moves out and where, because of planning blight, the widow, dependent on letting the house for a living, cannot let it to another tenant.
Why should she not get some protection? Why is she not in the same sort of position as the businessman who wants to unload his undertaking because the situation here—and I hope the House appreciates this—is not one where wholesale development is taking place and houses are being demolished all round and the shop is being deserted by

its good will and its clientele. That is not the situation. That is different and can be dealt with, as it is constantly done, by development authorities.
This is the case where nothing has happened. There has been no material change in the situation. The blight is due entirely to an intending activity in the future. If, therefore, one considers the shop as an illustration, the customers are still there to go into the shop. There is all the opportunity for the trade to go on in precisely the same way.

Mr. H. Brooke: On a point of order. Are we discussing the two or three groups of Opposition Amendments together? When we are discussing farm land, one does not normally speak of terms of trade, as the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) is doing.

Mr. Speaker: The same point was troubling me. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman is, in line 35, leave out "or agricultural unit". That was the one I thought we were on and in that context I could not understand the speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl).

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I think it was probably my fault. I hoped that we could discuss all the Amendments, with the exceptions that I mentioned, which raised two other points. It was with that in mind that I said what I had to say on the general question. The new Clauses that now appear in the Bill, to all of which I was referring with the exception of one, cover the matter in some detail.
I took it very shortly but the effect is to introduce, in addition to the resident owner-occupier, any owner-occupier of a hereditament or agricultural unit provided that the hereditament or agricultural unit is not above £250 rateable value. That is the effect of the whole thing and it was to that that I directed what I had to say. I thought we were taking them all together.

Mr. Speaker: When we come to it, does the hon. and learned Member not desire to move the Amendment to line 71, leave out "the prescribed limit"?

Mr. Mitchison: That was one of the two exceptions. The other, if I put the effect of it, was the point about severance and disturbance, which I hope at


this late hour of the night we shall not be to long about, which occurs in Schedule "A". With those exceptions, every Amendment was intended to be covered by what I said.

Mr. Speaker: Very well.

Mr. MacColl: I am relieved to think that it was only in that context that my speech was difficult to understand and not in the development of the general argument. I am sorry if I have gone too far, but I have been carried away by my hon. and learned Friend's eloquence.
The main point that I wanted to deal with was the problem of the commercial undertaking, because there is no case for including the commercial undertaking which happens to have an owner-occupier, and an undertaking or a house or anything else where the difficulty is that it cannot be let.

Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Member help me by indicating what words in the Amendment refer to a commercial undertaking? I do not quite follow that. I see only "or agricultural unit," and the group of Amendments to leave out "or unit." I do not see anything about a commercial undertaking. I may be wrong.

Mr. MacColl: I am sure you are not wrong, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that I am wrong. Again, I was trying to avoid making another speech dealing with the new Clause.

Mr. Speaker: We have not come to that yet. I hope that we may hear the hon Member when I put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Mitchison: I think that the critical Amendment is in the new Clause "F," in line 69, leave out from "thereof" to second "the" in line 73.

Mr. MacColl: No.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing his best to help the House in this matter, but I think that the old-fashioned way of getting on with this particular Amendment in line 35, leave out "or agricultural unit" might be quicker in the long run. If there is any other Amendment which the hon. and learned Member would like to move I will gladly let him do so. When

I last heard the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) he did not seem to be applying himself to the question of an agricultural unit. I will put it to the House. Amendment proposed: In line 35, leave out "or agricultural unit."

Mr. Mitchison: May I make an even simpler suggestion, Mr. Speaker? Let us not move this Amendment at all. Let us take the matter on the first of the Lords new Clauses. Would it be possible, consistent with the rules of order, to regard the speech that I have just made as having been made on that occasion? If I move it formally my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) can no doubt second it.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I can accommodate the hon. and learned Member. What would be the Motion that he has moved?

Mr. Mitchison: I imagine that at some stage or another the Government propose to move new Clause "F," or a paving Amendment. When they do I will make the speech I have just made in opposition to it. That is exactly the same point.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we can now pass to the hon. and learned Member's Amendment, in line 71. There is a special point on that, is there not?

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 71, leave out "the prescribed limit" and insert "one hundred pounds."
I must assume, for the purposes of this Amendment, that I have not succeeded in persuading this crowded House to reject the new Clause "F." That being so the question is, ought that to be the right limit in the case I indicated just now? This is a matter upon which we must form our own judgment, and form it quickly. There is not much argument about it. To have a rateable value as high as £250, which is what the Bill provides, will let in a great deal of property that is particularly open to the objections that the right hon. Gentleman made in the course of the passage of the Bill through this House.
12.45 a.m.
If we really want to protect the small shopkeeper and small farmer, and so on, and particularly the small shopkeeper—I should have thought that the extent to


which this affects farms was much less—then a limit of £100 is plenty. When we get to the range of between £100 and £250 we shall be protecting people who are far more likely to offload on to the local authority at a time convenient to themselves—I am paraphrasing the right hon. Gentleman—and who really deserve no particularly favourable treatment.
One has to remember in the whole of this argument that this is not a question of the amount of compensation which anyone will get. There is no question of that at all. The Bill is supposed to provide fair compensation. Whether it does or does not, these Clauses do not affect it. The only question is whether anyone is allowed to offload property, residential or otherwise, on to the local authority when the decision has been announced and before the local authority wishes to buy.
What I have said about this Amendment covers all that I would wish to say on the Amendment to line 76 and the further Amendment to new Clause "J," on page 2711 of the Notice Paper, to leave out lines 75 to 79, for these last lines merely contain the definition of the prescribed limit.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am bewildered and puzzled. As an earnest student of Parliamentary procedure, I find it a most extraordinary thing to grasp. I understand from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) that he knows from having read something somewhere else that the Government are going to present to the House an Order fixing a limit of a certain amount. The Bill, of course, does not say anything at all about what the limit will be. It simply calls it a "prescribed limit."
My first point is that there ought to be something in the Bill fixing the limit. It ought not to be left to an Order, because this is a point covering a good deal more than just making minor adjustments by a Statutory Instrument. This gives the Government power to raise the figure to whatever they like, and, in fact, to bring in all types of property.
I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong to do that, but the effect of this would be that, having got the Bill

through in this form at this late stage, if subsequently the Government do some more earnest thinking and decide that there are many banks which are badly affected because their branches are suffering from planning blight and therefore that the banks ought to be bought by the local authorities, there is nothing to stop them raising the rateable value limit to cover property of that sort. The matter will just have to be discussed on the Statutory Instrument without any power to amend on a straight vote.
The first point I wish to make about this Amendment is that there ought to be a specific figure in the Bill. It ought not to be left to the discretion of the Government either to introduce an Order altering it or not, according to their whim.
My second point relates to the limit of £100, as it was put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering. I am not disposed to argue about shillings, and £100 seems to be an accurate sort of guess. We are examining this matter quickly and late in the history of the Bill, and it represents a reversal in the attitude of the Government. We discussed the matter of market value during the debate on an earlier Amendment which was moved on the basis that there should be a rateable value limit placed on the operation of the Bill. At the beginning of our proceedings the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were so sure of themselves that they were contemptuous of any suggestion of that sort. But if that is valid in this narrow context it is equally valid in the wider context, because the principle is very much the same. It is an attempt to use rateable value to allocate for special treatment people who are of reasonably moderate means.
This is all rather difficult, because we are discussing what is not in the possession of the House, except in so far as we accept what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Mitchison: It is a little more than that; it is what the Government said in another place.

Mr. MacColl: I repeat that what the Government said in another place is not in the possession of the House. It may be known to some hon. Members who have been surreptitiously reading in the


Library the Official Report of the proceedings in another place. But it is not something which we have been told, except by my hon. and learned Friend. He has been assiduous in his researches and made a careful study of the proceedings in another place so that he is able to tell us what is the figure. We do not know from anything that the Government have told us. I am assuming a figure which is likely to be too high. I do not know how the Government have selected the figure which they are going to choose. I do not know what mental operations have gone on to produce it. It does not seem to me to be related to any particular test. The figure of £100 has a certain sanctity about it. It is a figure which may be found in the Rent Restriction Acts. I should have thought it a reasonable test with which to ascertain the small man who, I imagine is the person we are trying to help.
As the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, there is nothing to stop local authorities buying if they want to. We are not dealing with permission for the local authorities to buy in the higher case where at present they are prohibited from buying. It is a compulsion. They have to do something, and that is odd, because a large part of this Bill is designed to remove restrictions on local authorities. Here we are putting a compulsion on them and extending that compulsion, and I suspect that we are doing so without there having been any consultation with the local authorities. It is unlikely that the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the local authorities. It would not be according to his usual form if he had.

Mr. H. Brooke: Some hours ago, when our debate was better attended, the Government were charged with being in a state of mental confusion over the Bill. I must say that the hon. Members opposite seem to have been wandering in a veritable maze of their own Amendments recently, and I literally have no idea now to what Motion the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) was addressing himself in his last speech but one. In his last speech, I quite understand that he was addressing himself to the rateable value issue in regard to which the Amendment has been moved and seconded. I hope that I may enjoy a similar liberty to explain what is in the Government's mind, because it is

necessary to go a little afield in order to answer the points which have been put.

Mr. Mitchison: Lest there is any confusion about this in future, though I do not want to take up time about it, I should point out that there is an Amendment on page 2703 of the Notice Paper, in line 69, to leave out from "thereof" to the second "the" in line 73, which is one of the ones I was discussing on the first of the whole linked batch of Amendments. I think that it covers the point to which I was trying to direct the attention of the House. The point will be equally well covered when we can discuss the new Clause, as we no doubt soon shall.

Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned page 2703, which I do not have in my Paper. I am still in a state of uncertainty, but I think I should continue with my speech because I do not want to put the Opposition into further confusion.
The Government felt it desirable to introduce the new Clause to bring within the blight provisions the owner-occupiers of small businesses and farms because there seemed in such cases no risk of unloading at a chosen time, which might well be the case with some big concern, and there seemed to be a risk that the working proprietor might lose his livelihood. In passing, I should explain that, of course, the rateable value limit applies only to business premises and not to farms. It would be extremely difficult to apply a rateable value limit to farm lands since farm land is wholly derated. But that is the concept which, in the event, appealed to the Government, that one should, by these blight provisions, attempt to deal with personal hardship.
There has been general agreement that personal hardship might arise where the owner-occupier of a house wants to go and cannot sell his house. That is the obvious case. But a similar hardship might easily arise if an owner-occupier of a business found himself in difficulty because of blight and yet could not dispose of the business except at a sacrificial price. The same might well apply to a farm. The provisions in the new Clause are closely defined. It is not possible for anybody to do exactly what he likes. But on this particular issue of


the rateable value limit, the Opposition are now arguing that it should not be left to be fixed by Order, subject to Prayer in the House, but a figure of £100 should be inserted in the Bill.
The first point I put in reply to that is that, if one were to fix as low a rateable value limit as £100 for business premises, one would be excluding all but the very smallest shops and businesses. If the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) doubts that, I would simply ask him to look at some valuation lists, where he will find that quite small shops and business premises have a valuation of over £100. Therefore, if one is to do this at all one ought to do it in a realistic way.
1.0 a.m.
Moreover, it appears to the Government that this is a case where it would not be unreasonable to take power to fix the limit by Order. One might not get it right the first time, and it would be a pity if, in circumstances that made it appear to be the wrong limit, legislation should be required to amend it in the light of experience. There will, of course, be Parliamentary control, as any Order of this character can be prayed against.
A figure of £100 would clearly be too low, and in another place my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, indicated that the figure the Government had in mind was £250. I should like to tell the House that we have shown to various bodies concerned a draft of the Order which, subject to final consideration, the Government have it in mind to make. So far, the representations we have received are that the figure of £250 is too low rather than too high. I cannot prejudge that—further representations may come in—but we shall certainly reach a decision in the light of all the evidence we can collect. I will give very careful consideration to everything said in this House, or by responsible bodies and persons outside, before making the Order, but I must, in all seriousness, say that a figure of £100 would be too low.
Perhaps I might go a little further, and make the point that while the Opposition appear to be anxious here to defend the interests of the local authorities so that the local authorities might not be obliged to buy more extensively than they desire, the Government have

not received any representations of that character from the local authorities associations. Indeed, one—the County Councils Association—has indicated that it would not mind if the obligation to buy was made general and without limitation. Therefore, it is not the Opposition who are seeking to work in with the local authorities associations; they are taking a much narrower view than those associations themselves desire to take.
As I say, before making the Order, the Government will take everything into consideration, but I trust that the House will agree that it would be rendering the extension to business premises quite fruitless were we, by Statute, to fix as low a limit as £100.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to give him a small piece of information. The Amendment to which I referred a few moments ago is at the top of page 2709 of the Notice Paper, and not, as I misread it, in page 2703.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: Perhaps I may resume the speech I was making on the Amendment—

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. MacColl: A very interesting and important point was brought out about the exact ramifications of this new Clause. I had been a little uncertain of what was to be its range. I had understood that the figure of £250 had been mentioned in another place and that that was what the new Clause was to deal with, but the right hon. Gentleman has now made it clear that that was not by any means an undertaking. Now, he has said openly that he is considering the possibility of a larger rateable value. My fears on that matter have, therefore, been very much confirmed.
My other point is that the Minister accused us of being a little confused. As we have said again and again, the fault lies in the way that this important question has been treated. What has happened since Second Reading and


since the Committee stage which has made it necessary for the Government to change their mind? What is the new consideration? Did not the right hon. Gentleman make to himself then precisely the same speech as he made just now? If the arguments are persuasive now, they must have been persuasive then.
The other day, I paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman being intelligent. I repeat that tribute, even at this late hour, even under the tension of being called confused. There was nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman has just said of which he was not fully aware when he spoke so firmly and resonantly at the earlier stages of the Bill. That is the trouble with the right hon. Gentleman. He can argue a case so well and stick obstinately to it through thick and thin and suddenly argue the opposite case with equal enthusiasm that it is difficult to have much confidence in his judgment.
The right hon. Gentleman quoted the County Councils' Association against us. That was a singularly unhappy association to quote. He paid great attention to its views on this matter, but not the slightest regard to its views concerning the Amendment to the new Clause "E." It is not very impressive to hide behind the County Councils' Association, nor, I imagine, will the right hon. Gentleman get a happy reception from that Association next time he tries to reach some kind of agreement with it.
The great thing about the residential owner-occupier is that he may be the victim of external circumstances, such as change of job, which force him to move and, therefore, force him to realise his assets—his house—because he must get a house in the place to which he moves. The move may well be outside his control and, therefore, as I understand the argument, he is in a special position. That does not apply, except in rare cases, to the ordinary commercial undertaking, with which there is no question of loss of custom, because the blight is purely a planning thing; it is not an actual redevelopment. Therefore, there is not the same stress as there is for the man who has to move.
One case which might receive special consideration is the man who is

approaching retirement. The owner of a one-man business might want to retire, but has difficulty in finding anybody to take over his business because of planning blight. That is a strong case and one with which I have a good deal of sympathy. It must, however, have been in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman earlier. His answer was the persuasive argument that we can leave it to the good sense of the local authorities, encouraged by the Minister inviting them to buy in advance of requirements; it could be left to their good sense to treat such cases fairly. That would be a much better way of tackling the matter than, at this late stage in the development of the Bill, extending the Bill in this way.
I have been accused of being confused. I am confused, because I never know whether to accept the right hon. Gentleman's arguments. It is trying if one accepts them and then finds suddenly that he has dropped them himself and gone off on a completely different argument, reversing his position entirely. Anybody who would want to believe in the plausibility of what he said would find it extremely difficult.

Mr. Mitchison: Are we to have no explanation of this Clause by the Minister? If the matter has been passed, it has been passed. Has it been? Our arguments were directed to what he said here, but he had said the opposite.

Mr. H. Brooke: I am quite willing to speak on this Clause, by leave of the House.
First, may I just correct the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on one thing? I think that he gave the House to understand that I was likely, in the Order, to fix the figure about £250. What I said was that representations had been made in favour of a figure of about £250 and that I would take everything into consideration; but I gave no indication that I was going to fix the figure above or below that. I must reserve my own judgment on that. What I do say is that it is most desirable to retain this power of fixing the limit by Order. Surely the hon. Gentlement will realise that. For none of us can tell what revaluation, for example, will do.

Mr. MacColl: The point I was trying to make was that I understood from what


had been said that there had been an undertaking or some kind of positive assurance in another place that the figure of £250 was the one the Government were going to put in. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was too liable to pressure by a pressure group and might so go ahead.

Mr. Brooke: My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor indicated that £250 was the figure in the Government's mind, and what I have said tonight is that I will take into consideration everything that has been said here or elsewhere by people who are qualified to express a view on these matters; but it must not be taken for anything I have said today that I have already made up my mind to go either above or below £250. I simply assert, if only because of the contingency of revaluation, that it is desirable to fix these things by order and not by Statute.
The main point which the hon. Member was putting to me was that the Government had taken no notice at all of what was said during the Committee and other proceedings on the Bill. Surely it is one of the tasks of the Government to listen to what is said in Parliament and make up their mind in the light of that. From the outset the Parliamentary Secretary and I stated that in the Government's view there must be some limitation, and I say quite sincerely that our first conclusion was that it would need to be a limitation to the occupiers of residential property, because we saw the danger, if there were no such limitation, that somebody who might be running a substantial business and not doing very well, and who could show that the value of the business as a going concern was rather low, might seek to argue that that was due to planning blight and that he had a right to off-load the whole property on to the local authority at a time chosen by him. I do not think that anybody would approve that as a desirable possibility to which we ought to open the door.
In the light of the debates both here and in another place, it appeared to the Government that there was another parallel type of hardship which could be provided for and provided for in such a way as not to open the door to that kind of risk which I have indicated. That was the case of the owner-occupier of a small shop or business, or the

owner-occupier of a farm, who might suffer from planning blight and so be at risk through his loss of livelihood, in that he might need to sell the business. He hight possibly have cause to go elsewhere, just as an occupier of a house has cause, and yet he would be quite unable to dispose of it at anything but a sacrificial price because of the extent of planning blight.
In the new Clauses which were inserted in the Bill in another place, we have extended our original plan for owner-occupiers to those other limited classes of people whose livelihood may otherwise be jeopardised by planning blight. It is not all-embracing. There will be a limitation of rateable value in the case of businesses and commercial premises. In the case of a farm, an obligation to buy will extend only to the area directly affected by the scheme. The Government confidently ask the House to concur in the Amendments believing that by incorporating them in the Bill we shall have extended the provision which Parliament should make so that hardship may be relieved but the door not opened to malpractices.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman is saying the direct opposite to what he has said previously in the House. On two occasions, on Second Reading, he and his hon. Friend rejected what he is now saying, and on a third occasion, in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman rejected it again. This matter was considered in Committee, but only one Amendment was put down by hon. Members opposite and that related only to hardship. I have just been looking at the record. The only hon. Member opposite who suggested what the Government are now proposing was the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). Apparently, he is, for some reason, such a persuasive person that he has persuaded the Government to throw aside the fruits of long and anxious thought about which we heard so frequently on earlier occasions. Whether they thought this time or not is not so clear.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. There was one other group of Amendments on the Notice Paper. Neither my


hon. Friends nor I think they raise a sufficiently important point to justify keeping the House at this late hour. All the other new Clauses have been really discussed with the last new Clause. Consequently, we on this side of the House—I do not know about hon. Members opposite—should have no objection to the rest of Amendments being put in one solid block.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Title

Postponed Lords Amendments in the Title, lines 8, 10, and 14, agreed to.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1957–58

Resolutions reported,
I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st March 1958, that the aggregate Expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £3,185,985 16s. 8d. viz.:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
5,816,760
9
10


Total Deficits
…
2,630,774
13
2


Net Surplus
…
£3,185,985
16
8

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

1. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended 31st day of March 1958, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the Expenditure is £4,776,640 0s. 0d., viz.:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
21,091,193
0
11


Total Deficits
…
16,324,553
0
11


Net Surplus
…
£4,766,640
0
0

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised—

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Army Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £422,944 4s. 9d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953;
(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

2. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1958, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £11,212,646 1s. 11d., viz.:—




£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
15,026,598
0
0


Total Deficits
…
3,813,951
18
1


Net Surplus
…
£11,212,646
1
11

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised—

(1) the application of so much of the realised surplus on Vote 8 for Air Services as is necessary to meet the net deficit of £1,622,755 11s. 11d. on Vote 11 that would otherwise have been met by issues out of the Consolidated Fund under the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Acts, 1949 and 1953;
(2) the application of so much of the remainder of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the remainder of the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

3. That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

[For details see OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1959; Vol. 608, c. 1297–1310.]

Resolutions agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past One o'clock.